January 28, 2010
January 28, 2010 | 220 Comments
Further Reflections on Calvinism
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Comments
220 Responses to “January 28, 2010”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live Online
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
January 28th, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
I’ve noticed that those who call in don’t really stick to the specific point or give a clear answer.
I think (note, these are just my personal observations) the Calvinist believe as they do because:
1. They presuppose anything attributed as being done by man is taking glory away from God.
2. They “exegete” the Bible with certain unassailable presuppositions as the basis of understanding what they are “exegeting”. Actually, and I don’t mean to be rude, but they over-exegete; Calvinistic scholars seem to over-emphasize the practice of exegeting the text as if common sense were a curse and ought never be used. Of course, this is only my personal observation from my own interactions with Calvinists.
3. The mistake of the Calvinist may also be in presupposing that their Creeds are accurate renditionsof Biblical teaching, although they may not admit to it, even too the point of (as Dr. White did on the program) citing them as a validation of their propositions.
One thing that baffles me to no end is how anyone can believe that God would “decree” one thing and desire something totally opposite and to suggest that such a “decree” is secret. My first question would be, if it’s a secret, how do you know about it?
My second question would be, why not preach the “whole counsel” of God (as the Calvinist would claim should be done) and tell their unsaved audience the truth, that some of them God will save and the rest he won’t; that a few that willl be saved, will – by and by – have that salvation yanked from them (my paraphrase of Calvin’s comment). We don’t know who but…that’s God…sovereign an secretive.
Anyway, Dr. Brown, I had an exciting three days listening to the debate on your program.
P.S. On the radio you mentioned your Jeremiah commentary. I could not find it on your website or on Amazon. How can I get it?
January 28th, 2010 @ 8:14 pm
What this whole debate is missing is that the doctrine of foreordination is the ONLY doctrine that saves the complete omniscience of God, and the free choice of man.
If God knows the future, than what takes place is certain in advance. If it is certain in advance, then apart from God’s ordination of free choice, there can be no free choice.
God does not gain knowledge so whatever He knows, has been true for eternity. My simple question for those who deny predestination is this: If God knows what you will do tomorrow, and has always known what you will do tomorrow, when were you, and how are you free to do other than what God knows you will do?
January 28th, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
“One thing that baffles me to no end is how anyone can believe that God would “decree” one thing and desire something totally opposite and to suggest that such a “decree” is secret. My first question would be, if it’s a secret, how do you know about it?”
Well, you believe that God created the universe knowing exactly things would turn out the way they did, but you also affirm He desired a different outcome. How is that substantially any different?
January 28th, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
Looks like the recording has not fully uploaded. It only runs around 3 min +/-
January 28th, 2010 @ 11:59 pm
For all those Calvin loving Calvinists, check out Stanford Rives, Did Calvin Murder Servetus?. Available to read in its entirety free from googlebooks:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MlPrYQ5srKEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=did+calvin+murder+servetus%3F&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:40 am
Geoff and Sye, I suggest that you read through the forums here for the two days preceding this show where all these issues are addressed in depth and clearly answered.
January 29th, 2010 @ 9:06 am
Mo (I believe you were the second caller), are you confirming the Calvinist’s doctrine of “irresistable grace”?
January 29th, 2010 @ 10:44 am
Hi Geoff,
Here’s my take.
In relation to free will creatures, exhaustive divine foreknowledge does not necessitate all that God knows will occur, therefore, there is room for God to have genuinely desired a different outcome and for a different outcome to have actually occurred; and that because God did not actively engage in the manipulation of events according to a “secret” preordained decree. As such, God knows what will occur not because he preordained it (in the Calvinistic sense) to occur but God knows what will occur simply because it will occur.
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Hi Sye,
Read my response of January 29, 2010 at 10:44 am to Geoff.
Also note that no one is denying predestination; what is denied is the Calvinistic interpretation of predestination.
That God knows what we will do tomorrow does not make the occurrence necessary. Under Calvinism it does not because God knows the event will occur but because God preordained its occurrence. However, divine foreknowledge simply knows the free acts of free will beings.
In Calvinism,it seems that divine foreknowledge is dependent and based upon divine foreordination (or predestination). When, it seems to me, divine foreknowledge is dependent on and based upon the divine wisdom.
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:09 am
Xavier Roman Catholic,
And all of the Arminians who love to slander John Calvin, his ministry and by doing so slander Holy Spirit who used John Calvin so profoundly and so mightily here is an important historical fact:
The first slanderous description of John Calvin in Servetus incident was written by – ATTENTION – a REVERT to ROMAN CATHOLICISM Jerome Bolsec in 1577. Bolsec was a French refugee claiming to convert to Biblical Christianity from Roman Catholicism. He was a physician, former monk and a doctor of theology. From day one in Geneva he constantly work to undermine Clavin’s ministry and particularly to attack his teachings…
The lies of Roman Catholic Bolsec led Theodore Beza a personal friend to Calvin and one of the leaders of Reformation to write his own biography of John Calvin to set the record straight.
All of you who repeat lies and slander about John Calvin are ignorant of historical facts and the legal union between Church and state in XVI century Europe and more importantly you do dance to the fiddle of Roman Catholic propaganda designed to slander and weaken Reformation and its leaders still being payed out from Rome…
For more balanced and real information you should read:
“John Calvin – Pilgrim and Pastor” by highly respected scholar and theologian W.Robert Godfrey.
It is ONLY 199 pages but packed with solid information and facts. You can see it and get it at Amazon here:
http://tinyurl.com/yg25xz7
Do not let yourself dance to Roman Catholic disinformation…
SDG,
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:37 am
SDG,
Just curious. Have you read the book referenced and linked to above? If not, how can you be so sure that it is just a pack of lies and unfounded slander? Are you suggesting that only those who defend Calvin can possibly be right and those who do not must be wrong? That reminds me of how the LDS church revises its own history, claiming that their accounts alone are accurate while opposing accounts are just slanderous and satanically inspired. I think it is important to examine all the evidence and then make a balanced judgment, don’t you? Rives’ book is well-documented and worth the read.
God Bless,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
Ben,
My name is Christophe and not SDG… SDG stands for Soli Deo Gloria…
I am not interested in what this reminds you and your analogy to LDS is just out of a line. It really is.
Just because I did not read Rive’s book it does not mean that I did not read on this issue as presented from the other side. It is so preposterous to assume that as it is to think that Rives is the only one that ever wrote to attack Calvin and Reformation.
I have read about this from the other side. The real question is: HAVE YOU read about it from more balanced side ???
Maybe you should so get the book. One thing you should realize is that it is only telling that as an Arminian your beliefs are in much alignment with many teachings of Roman Catholic Church as to the nature of God, nature of man and salvation. Therefore it is only consistent that you do follow attack and slander against Calvin and Reformed Faith as instituted and propagated to this day by Roman Catholic Church.
SDG,
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
Dr. Brown,
You mentioned that you were going to debate someone on the issue of cessationism. Have you thought about taking on John MacArthur? I’m not sure if his book “Charismatic Chaos” had ever been publicly challenged (it was written some time ago), but he blasted away at the charismatic church, spiritual gifts, etc., pretty vehemently in the book. However, I was completely unimpressed with any of his biblical evidences for his position. Anyways, thought that might be an option. If not, I’d like to see you take on James White on that subject as well
Whoever it is, I have a feeling you’ll mop the floor with them – in a loving, gracious, edifying way 
, being as I’ve never heard great arguments for the cessationist position. Anyways, that’s just my two cents. Thanks for everything you do! God Bless,
John
January 29th, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Just listened through the complete problem. I think there is a philosophical distinction that Dr. Brown does not use which may help us understand each other a little better.
In philosophy, there is a distinction between moral inability and natural inability. A natural inability is asking someone to fly when they don’t have wings. A moral inability is asking your son to behave when he doesn’t want to.
I am naturally unable to fly. I am not naturally unable to be good. I just don’t want to be. I am a sinner. I can do good. I just don’t want to.
So when you say “how can God blame someone if He didn’t predestinate someone?” (first of all you should be taken aback by that because your objection matches the mocker in Romans 9, that’s a warning that you are off-track) you are thinking in terms of natural inability.
Unregenerate sinners are unable to accept the gospel because they hate God. In terms that I have already described, they are morally unable. They are just stubborn and unwilling. They believe in all sorts of things so it isn’t that they lack the capacity to exercise faith.
I would also add that if you describe your belief in predestination and don’t get an objection like the one Paul anticipates in Romans 9, your view of predestination is in error.
January 29th, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
Nelson:
Exegesis is a good thing. When I was first wrestling with Calvinism, I came to the realization that the only objections that I could raise were philosophical in nature and were actually only gross caricatures of Calvinistic beliefs. I thought that Calvinism was fatalistic and devalued evangelism, but I discovered that it addresses the spiritual dimensions behind decision-making and actually taught that evangelism is God’s plan for accomplishing His glory worldwide.
As an Emergent Arminian I had a view of evangelism that involved catering to non-believing audiences with the very best of contextualization and culture-sensitive methods and I would find myself hesitant to discuss any spiritual matter with non-believers without prefacing it by digressing and offering apologies for negative experiences that they might have had with religion, church, etc.
Calvinism has given me a new passion for evangelism because I can no longer digress and pick out a demographic that I am comfortable with because I am constantly reminded that God has his elect among every people group on the planet (Revelation 7:9). On top of this, I am no longer obsessive about methodology since my effectiveness is primarily the work of the Holy Spirit, not my ability to be relevant.
And last but not least, I discovered that there are plenty of prominent Calvinists that were/are proponents of revival and non-cessationist.
January 29th, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
Dr.Brown,
I heard you say more than once over last three days that when Reformed Believers mention Romans 9 they really fail to understand it in the context of the whole argument presented by Apostle Paul as its is presented at least from Romans 9 to 11.
I would present to you that your assertion is purely rhetorical and without Scriptural basis in this regard. Reformed Faith does understand and does take the whole argument into consideration and the Scripture is very consistent and perspicuous there.
Just two quotes:
“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”
Romans 9:18 ESV
“What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
Romans 11:7-8 ESV
Also, I heard you saying that Calvinism is unbiblical and that Reformed make their faith a work to obtain salvation. I would like to kindly present to you that those assertions are deep and grievous misrepresentations of the Doctrines of Grace and Reformed Theology. I hope that these claims will be thoroughly examined and cleared in upcoming debate with Dr.James White.
Best regards,
SDG
PS For all interested Dr.White on Romans 9:
http://mp3.aomin.org/JRW/Romans9.mp3
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
Christophe: I think the best way to understand the Romans argument is that each premise also makes up an argument itself; so the conclusion doesn’t falsify the force of Romans 9.
January 29th, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Christophe,
My apologies on the name.
I am not interested in what this reminds you and your analogy to LDS is just out of a line. It really is.
So it is out of line for me to say that your comments reminded me of the tactics of the LDS church regarding history, but is fine for you to say I am in league with the Roman Catholic church and that it is only “consistent” of me to attack and slander against Calvin and the Reformation, etc., etc.? Does that seem “consistent” to you?
Just because I did not read Rive’s book it does not mean that I did not read on this issue as presented from the other side. It is so preposterous to assume that as it is to think that Rives is the only one that ever wrote to attack Calvin and Reformation.
I didn’t say that you didn’t read from the other side, but you comments seemed to be in response to Rives’ book being cited, were they not? But notice how you keep referring to any history that is negative towards Calvin as an “attack” on Calvin and the reformation. That is why I mentioned the seeming parallel to the LDS handling of history above, and your comments here only seem to reinforce that parallel.
I have read about this from the other side. The real question is: HAVE YOU read about it from more balanced side ???
Yes, I have read sympathetic approaches to Calvin’s role in Geneva and with Servetus.
Maybe you should so get the book. One thing you should realize is that it is only telling that as an Arminian your beliefs are in much alignment with many teachings of Roman Catholic Church as to the nature of God, nature of man and salvation. Therefore it is only consistent that you do follow attack and slander against Calvin and Reformed Faith as instituted and propagated to this day by Roman Catholic Church.
Again, I think comments like these highlight the analogy I drew above quite nicely. If something takes a negative view of Calvin or his dealing with Servetus, that can only be because it is influenced by the evil Roman Catholic Church, and is nothing more than “slander”,etc. So basically the only accurate view is the view that excuses Calvin’s actions, and any view that does not is just RC slander, etc. Do you see that?
SDG,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Christophe,
I have repeatedly heard Reformed advocates make faith into a work, and I concur with the comments of F. F. Bruce re: Romans 9 that I read on my show yesterday. Simply calling some rhetoric doesn’t change the facts.
January 29th, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
Christophe,
The charge is pretty accurate. In White’s “The Potter’s Freedom” he does not interpret Rom. 9 in the context of Rom. 9-11 (he doesn’t even consider Paul’s conclusion in Rom. 9:30-33. In Piper’s book on Romans 9, he entirely ignores the greater context of 9-11. When Schreiner deals with Romans 9 in “Still Sovereign” he largely ignores the context of 9-11 as well. And you basically do the same in the way you isolated these verses, esp. Rom. 11:7-8,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
If you would have kept reading you would have discovered that Paul says of these same Jews (that you seem to think are reprobates),
“So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.”
Do you see that? There stumble is not necessarily fatal. They can yet recover (Rom. 11:12-26). That doesn’t make sense if the Calvinist interpretation is accurate, nor does it make sense that Paul would pray for their recovery (10:1). And Romans 11:32 makes it clear that God’s desire is to show mercy to all who have come under the bondage of disobedience (which plainly includes the very “reprobated” Jews who have been discussed in the previous sections),
“For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”
So really you have just given us all a pretty good illustration of how Calvinists tend to ignore the greater context when dealing with these passages in Romans.
God Bless,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Dr. Brown,
I got a kick out of the gentleman who repeatedly laughed off your comments and then accused you of “making things up out of thin air.” When you mentioned that calvinists need to read the entire bible, he laughed. I found this ironic, because if he had read the entire Bible he would know that many verses very clearly say just what you were describing. For instance, Jeremiah 32:35:
“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.”
(c.f. Jeremiah 7:31, Jeremiah 19:5, etc.)
Could these verses be any clearer? These verses describe very clearly human volition. Judah was acting in opposition to God’s will. There are similar verses found in just about every book in the OT.
It should also be noted that these verses do not impugn God’s sovereignty OR his omniscience…they simply prove that in His sovereignty, God *allows* us to do certain things that He does not intend for us to do.
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
Jake, precisely so.
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
“So it is out of line for me to say that your comments reminded me of the tactics of the LDS church regarding history, but is fine for you to say I am in league with the Roman Catholic church and that it is only “consistent” of me to attack and slander against Calvin and the Reformation, etc., etc.? Does that seem “consistent” to you?”
Ben,
It does. You have argued from your assumption that I do not read other side and I dismiss other side a priori out of ignorance and henceforth you came up with your analogy wit LDS cult.
I have provided historical fact that slander on Calvin was originated by Roman Church in the person of a double REVERT (from Roman religion to Christianity to Roman Religion) – Jerome Bolsec who have been corrected and dismissed by many contemporaries to him and Calvin.
I am not putting you in “the same league” with Rome as you have exaggerated again but the fact and historical as well theological record remains and is out there. Those facts DO point to many commonalities between Roman Theology and Arminianan Theology. Spend some time researching this and studying it and if you have an open mind you will SEE that.
Please do not ask me to provide evidence for all of that as this is in tons of Roman materials as contained in council canons, papal encyclicals, papal bulls, papal writings and books, catechisms, as well as writings of prominent Roman theologians.
Just an appetizer in the defense of free will just the way a typical Arminian understands it from foundational Council of Trent a counter reformation council where Rome energized itself to fight down Christian Faith:
“If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.”
Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, Canon V
This should make you think and think hard…
SDG,
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:39 pm
“I have repeatedly heard Reformed advocates make faith into a work, and I concur with the comments of F. F. Bruce re: Romans 9 that I read on my show yesterday.”
Dr.Brown,
I can only hope that your challenge and claims that:
A. Calvinism is unbiblical.
B. Reformed turn faith into work in order to be saved.
Will be appropriately addressed and demolished by Dr. White in up coming debate as it should.
SDG,
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
Nelson said:
//”That God knows what we will do tomorrow does not make the occurrence necessary. “//
Nelson, if God knows that something WILL occur, then it is certain in advance that it WILL occur or God’s knowledge would be wrong. No one has tackled my question: Since God knows what you will do tomorrow, and has always known what you will do tomorrow, when were you, and how are you free to do other than what God knows you will do?
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
Christophe,
I really do not even know were to begin with you. Are you suggesting that anything the RCC believes is in error and if we agree with any aspect of what they believe it means we are somehow tainted by the RCC? I assume you know that the RCC holds to the deity of Christ and to the Trinity, correct? Do you hold to these doctrines? Maybe this should make you think and think hard…
Also, the belief in free will predates the RCC. The ante-Nicene fathers all held to a libertarian view of free will. This is even admitted by Augustine and Calvin. The Ante-Nicene fathers stood against determinism as the error of the Gnostics. Maybe this should make you think and think hard…
And are you really suggesting that any negative accounting of Calvin’s dealings with Servetus and his general behavior in Geneva has its roots in some sort of conspiracy originating with Bolsec? Really? I think you really need to read Rives’ book and pay careful attention to the source documentation provided.
As far as the parallel between your accounting of history concerning Calvin and the LDS church, I am happy to leave it to the reader to decide based on the evidence provided in these few posts. Personally, I think the parallel holds and has only been reinforced as you continue to try to defend yourself. But that is just my opinion.
God Bless,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
“It should also be noted that these verses do not impugn God’s sovereignty OR his omniscience…they simply prove that in His sovereignty, God *allows* us to do certain things that He does not intend for us to do.”
Jake,
I have a revelation for you. Reformed Faith have never denied human responsibility while always, always proclaiming and maintaining God’s sovereignty.
What I have found out is that “sovereignty” means a lot of times a totally different thing to Arminian than what it means for Reformed as it is described in the Word so many times.
SDG,
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
“I assume you know that the RCC holds to the deity of Christ and to the Trinity, correct? Do you hold to these doctrines? Maybe this should make you think and think hard…”
Ben,
By above you just highlighted my point about convergence in some areas of theology between Rome and Arminian view…
I am not going even to respond to this as anyone who knows RCC teaching knows what I am talking about.
So for you Deity of Jesus Christ and Triune God of the Bible is enough to feel commonality? Really?
You forgot ONE and very important truth…. THE GOSPEL.
SDG,
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
“So really you have just given us all a pretty good illustration of how Calvinists tend to ignore the greater context when dealing with these passages in Romans.”
Ben,
This would be quite funny if we would discuss text of the Obama’s State of the union address but it is not due to the gravity of the text we do discuss.
You accuse me of the very thing you are engaging in…
“Do you see that? There stumble is not necessarily fatal.”
I see that but not for the reasons of your gross eisegesis but because of the CONTEXT and what that means in the CONTEXT.
Here ponder on this PRECEDING to your quotes and my quotes thesis of Paul and may God’s reply to Elijah presented as thesis will be also reply to you and your wrong argumentation:
“But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”
Romans 11:4-6 ESV
SDG,
Christophe
You acc
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:09 pm
Nelson,
I totally agree with all the points of your first post in this forum regarding Calvinisits, having formerly been one.
Rob S.,
I appreciate your openness on how Calvinism has effected your passion for evangelism. If it helps you in that sense, more power to you. I used to be Calvinist and had the opposite experience of what you described. My story is pretty much identical to Dr. Brown’s, regarding why I’m not Calvinist. As for evangelism, consider Paul. He became all things to all people in order to reach them with the Gospel. He understood there was a sensitivity issue reaching certain people with the Gospel, so he didn’t use the same evangelism approach with all people. Contextualization in evangelism does not mean the Gospel message will be compromised. In fact, contextualization is essential! This is clearly evident from the vast amount of stories I’ve heard from various missionaries all over the world seeing people of various tongues, tribes, and nations come to Messiah.
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
By above you just highlighted my point about convergence in some areas of theology between Rome and Arminian view…
I am not going even to respond to this as anyone who knows RCC teaching knows what I am talking about.
You are entirely missing the point. Just because someone shares a certain perspective with the RCC does not mean that it is incorrect or unbiblical. That is plainly highlighted by the fact that all Protestants agree with the RCC on the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. So your logic just does not follow.
And you completely ignored the very relevant point concerning the ante-Nicene fathers.
I see that but not for the reasons of your gross eisegesis but because of the CONTEXT and what that means in the CONTEXT.
Here ponder on this PRECEDING to your quotes and my quotes thesis of Paul and may God’s reply to Elijah presented as thesis will be also reply to you and your wrong argumentation:
“But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”
Romans 11:4-6 ESV
Feel free to explain how these verses are supposed to be a problem for my view. Any further discussion on my end will have to wait until Monday at the earliest.
SDG,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
Michael K.,
Would you be willing to share your story of why you left Calvinism at my site? Just follow this link:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/x-calvinist-corner/
Anyone else who is an X-Calvinist is welcomed and encouraged to visit my site and share there story as well (including Dr. Brown of course).
God Bless,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
“You are entirely missing the point. Just because someone shares a certain perspective with the RCC does not mean that it is incorrect or unbiblical.”
Ben,
I am affraid that it is you who is missing the point. This is not about “someone” meaning this is not on a personal level.
This is about theological thought and framework of understanding God’s truth surely you will admit that is way more broader in scope and time than a personal level and as such Roman theological framework and Ariminain theological framework converge in many, many places.
“Feel free to explain how these verses are supposed to be a problem for my view.”
I am not interested in doing a bible study here. Why don’t sit on them in your room by yourself with initial invitation of Holy Spirit to see that? He makes everything clear to us, always.
SDG,
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Christophe,
Now would be a good time to back off on the tendency to insult. A little more respect and grace is in order. If any others have offended here, then let this be a reminder for everyone.
This has been a great and worthwhile discussion, so let’s keep it that way.
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Dr. Brown,
I have listened to the past 3 days of shows and must say that I applaud both you and Dr. White on the debate and the further discussion from yesterday on your program. You were a gracious host, both sides exhibited much kindness, and in the end I was left hungering for more dialogue between you two brothers.
Over the past year or so, my study of the scriptures has led me away from an Arminian perspective towards a Calvinistic view of the sovereignty of God, regeneration, man’s ability, and so on. Much of this came about as I began reading more and more of the Old Testament and saw how God chose to deal with His nation, Israel, and the other nations.
I would love to hear your thoughts and scriptural defense of these 2 questions:
1. You responded to Dr. White’s emphasis on Christ as our High Priest where he discussed Hebrews 10. You then went to Leviticus 16 and also chapter 23 speaking of the high priest’s work only atoning for sin IF the Israelite did his part (denying himself, not working according to Lev 23:28). My first thought (and now my question to you) was what about the Assyrians, the Amorites, the people of Jericho, the people of Ai, the Canaanites, and so on. Was the work of the high priest for them as well?
2. If you believe that Christ’s sacrifice was perfect and for all people, yet you aren’t a universalist, then please explain how this does not diminish Christ’s power? To me this is saying that God is not omnipotent if the precious blood of Christ cannot effectually save those He gave Himself for (which you seem to say is all men).
These are 2 questions that really stood out in my mind after listening the past 3 days. I appreciate the time you have taken thus far and again commend you for your kindness.
Blessings in Christ,
Lee
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Christophe,
I was referring to the comments made by Charles (jump to 27 minutes into the show and you’ll get the context).
Would you agree that Isreal was acting in direct opposition to God’s will? If not, what does it mean when the Lord said “I never commanded it, nor did it enter my mind”? (Jeremiah 32:25)
Reading through Jeremiah, you will see that God is not merely referring to reprobates who were destined to sin according to His sovereign decree. Rather, God is speaking through Jeremiah in deep sorrow, to His chosen people. In Ezekiel, God describes Isreal as an adulterous wife. Certainly, God did not desire for Isreal to turn from Him in this way!
“How weak-willed you are, declares the Sovereign LORD, when you do all these things, acting like a brazen prostitute! When you built your mounds at the head of every street and made your lofty shrines in every public square, you were unlike a prostitute, because you scorned payment.
You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband!” (Ezekiel 16:30-32)
What do you make of these verses, Christophe? I encourage you to read the entire 16th chapter of Ezekiel. It describes very explicitly the way God feels when we reject Him. He is not willing that any should reject Him (and perish)! And yet he allowed his chosen bride, Isreal, to not only reject him but to prostitute itself in unthinkable ways. The sixteenth chapter of Ezekiel is a picture of God’s sovereignty coupled with His profound love for humanity.
God’s sovereignty over all things and his love for all men are not mutually exclusive, as James White seems to believe. His sovereignty and love interact in a very dynamic way. I fear you are compromising God’s love when you insist that God must exercise His sovereignty at all times, simply because He is able to.
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
Dr.Brown,
Please indicate where did I insult anybody or where do you see this “tendency.” All this time I have responded with what I believe a good dose of graciousness and we had a respectful dialog here which you have applauded yourself prior.
I think you are confusing steadfastness with “tendency to insult” but maybe I am wrong so please document this tendency.
Thank you.
Regards,
SDG,
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
One little correction that I ssume you will agree with Jake: God allowing us to make choices is an act of his sovereignty. So he does exercise his sovereignty at all times; it’s just that he does so in different ways appropriate to the situation at hand just as one would expect of a sovereign and just as the Bible reveals about God the Supreme Sovereign.
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
“One little correction that I ssume you will agree with Jake: God allowing us to make choices is an act of his sovereignty. So he does exercise his sovereignty at all times; it’s just that he does so in different ways appropriate to the situation at hand just as one would expect of a sovereign and just as the Bible reveals about God the Supreme Sovereign.”
Excellent point, and thanks for clarifying.
The point I was trying to make is that some calvinists seem to think God must exercise His power to its full extent, in every instance. In other words, if he wants something to happen, he MUST make it happen. I don’t see this in Scripture. Instead, I see a God who tempers his omnipotence with a fatherly love (allowing us to resist Him, despite his ability to “force us” into salvation).
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
Jake,
The whole chapter 16 of Ezekiel is a picture of God who is love but also is justice and also is holiness. Reformed faith affirms human responsibility while proclaiming God’s sovereignty in all matters.
I would like you to re read the chapter again and pay attention who is the primary doer? Who defines and who says “I will…”
God exercise His authority and sovereignty at all times as the King should and would; otherwise He is not a king. Yet He does it with love and mercy, justice and punishment or reward as well holiness.
Jake,
“it’s just that he does so in different ways appropriate to the situation at hand just as one would expect of a sovereign and just as the Bible reveals about God the Supreme Sovereign.”
Agreed.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
Christophe,
I was referring to your closing words: “I am not interested in doing a bible study here. Why don’t sit on them in your room by yourself with initial invitation of Holy Spirit to see that? He makes everything clear to us, always.”
If that was not meant in any insulting way, as if people are not just listening to the truth and so they need to be quite and let the Holy Spirit straighten them out, then there’s no problem. Thanks!
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
Dr.Brown,
It was not meant in any way shape or form to be insulting. And if anyone assumes that it was then I was insulting myself as well as I included myself in the remark by indicating word: “us” as in:
“…He makes everything clear to us, always.””
Thank you.
Regards,
SDG,
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
Christophe — thanks much, and please forgive me for misreading your post.
January 29th, 2010 @ 5:28 pm
No problem Dr. Brown and it is always good to pay attention to others especially those who walk closely with the Lord like you Dr.Brown.
SDG
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
Arminian,
“it’s just that he does so in different ways appropriate to the situation at hand just as one would expect of a sovereign and just as the Bible reveals about God the Supreme Sovereign.”
Agreed. Agreed indeed.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
Hello all
I love the show, Dr Brown. Please keep podcasting it — I am in the UK, so cannot listen to it live. I have not yet heard all of the debate with James White. I found your site last month and downloaded lots of shows from 2008 -2009, so I am still listening to the original stuff on Calvinism.
I find that whenever you have a show on Calvinism (or Christmas!) there seems to be an assumption that only academic, wordy arguments are worthy arguments, so posters are under pressure to conform to that. You know, as the mother of two young children, I must explain the following things:
Why did Adam and Eve eat the fruit? What is heaven like? How can Jesus be God’s Son and God as well? Did Jesus wear a nappy(diaper)? Why did Satan turn evil? Will I always be a daughter?
When will I die? Will I be little when I get to heaven, or will I be a grown up? Why do some people not believe in God? Why did David kill Uriah and commit adultery? Is God in my room now – Then why can’t I see Him? Was Jesus black like you, or white like Papa? Why did Jesus have to die on the Cross?
I have to do this fully (or the children won’t trust my word) and simply (or they won’t get it). Since I am a proppa pukka Cockney gurl, this is not difficult .(Ha ha!) When I heard about the ideas in Calvinism, and how complicated they were to explain, it seemed a bit fishy to me. If it cannot be explained to, or by, a child under 12, you are going to be in trouble. I heard that about 60% of people who turn to Christ are saved under the age of 20.
How come I can explain the Trinity, Gen 3:15, Revelation, types of Jesus in the Old Testament and appearances of Jesus in the Old Testament to a 6 yr-old — but God’s “secret” will that damns most of mankind is too much for adults to take in? BTW, said 6 yr-old is not a prodigy — he wipes his snot on his sleeve like all the other smelly little boys. (Smelly since he has the aversion to washing that is common to little men!)
“You see, son, when it says ‘all’ here in John 3:16, it doesn’t mean ‘all’ … Well, in Gen 1:1, it does mean ‘God created’, but …”
Eh?
Anyway, I should stop because I cannot do as well as Dr Brown.
January 29th, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
It seems to me that Arminians and Calvinists agree that God has a greater desire than the salvation of all people.
Arminians seem to be saying that, though God truly desires all people to be saved, his greater desire is that they should have a choice in the matter. It is therefore more important to God that man should have freedom of choice (to accept or reject the offer of salvation) than that all should be saved.
Calvinists seem to be saying that, though God truly desires all people to be saved, his greater desire is that his Name should be glorified. His Name will be most glorified in showing grace to the elect (by changing their hearts so that they will love Him and therefore freely choose Him) and giving justice to the non-elect by allowing them to continue in their wilful rebellion (which will in turn magnify his grace to the elect since they will all have to say “apart from the grace of God there goes I”).
Is my understanding correct?
January 29th, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
Im not sure if John McArthur is a public debater but I think he would be a good choice to debate on cessationism (also mentioned by John’s post above).
January 29th, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
I remember reading Romans 9-11 and a I realized something that totally showed me God’s mercy as I never saw it.
The elect Jews became reprobate by rejecting the salvation.
They were the elect branches and they got cut off.
And the reprobate, non-elect received salvation through faith
They were wild branches that God grafted in.
Oh the wisdom and mercy of God!
The ones God elected for salvation became reprobate and that were reprobate became His elect.
I don’t know how Calvinists can miss that this in Romans 9-11, it wasn’t what God was wanting, it wasn’t His intention in sending Jesus.
He wanted to have mercy on all.
He wanted all to come to be grafted in.
January 29th, 2010 @ 6:22 pm
Christophe both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is King. That He is ultimately the God of holiness and justice and He gets the last word. The difference is the Calvinist says, “God is glorified most by us not having any free choice.” The Arminian says, “No, God is most glorified by allowing people to choose Him as He as given the opportunity to all men.”
January 29th, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
Dr. Brown,
you said you believe that God’s Sovereignty is diminshed by the Calvinist interpretation of Sovereignty. How can that be? I mean that make such a big deal about God being glorified that He does everything, even causing people to sin so that He can be glorified in their judgment. So how can you say it diminishes God’s Sovereignty? What do you mean by Sovereignty then? And how does that make God less free to do what He wants when He wants it?
January 29th, 2010 @ 7:49 pm
Hi Rob!
No one said exegesis is not a good thing. I stated that there is an over-emphasis in the art of exegesis to the point of ignoring common sense, which is one problem I think the Calvinist has, e.g. Dr. White.
The idea a God having “two wills”, one secret, the other revealed, and both contradicting each other is a case in point.
As far as your experience as an “emergent Arminian”, the problem may have not been the doctrine itself (although I am not really familiar with what they believe) but with your understanding of classical Arminianism and, I respectfully state with no intent to insult, a desire for a view of God or religious belief that one can feel gives him more control or security over the uncertainties in life (although, and here is the irony, Calvinism, when really seriously considered, fail to do).
I am making no judgement on your reasons for turning to Calvinism, just laying out something to consider.
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
Hi Christophe! Hope you don’t mind me responding to your comment directed to Dr. Brown.
It seems you challenged the veracity of a couple of comments he may have made:
That “Calvinism is unbiblical” is true but limited to those places where it seeks to go beyond texts, e.g. that God has “two wills” is an obvious example, in order to validate their presuppositions.
That “Reformed turn faith into work in order to be saved” is, by my experience talking with Calvinists, very true. Unless, as they assert, God gives you faith (my lingo: plucks it from the sky into your heart), it is a work, an attempt to take the glory away from God. With many Calvinists I have spoken with, this is the case and, although I may be wrong (but doubt it), I’m pretty sure White would say the same thing.
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
Hey Ben, I’m wondering if MacArthur is a scholar, a real theologian. Do you know if he holds any scholarly credentials, like something in Biblical languages or something?
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
I think that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism can be most clearly seen in their respective views on what ultimately differentiates the saved from the lost.
The Calvinist believes that the only thing that differentiates the saved person from the unsaved person is God’s grace. Therefore he may look upon the soul burning in hell and say” “Apart from the grace of God there goes I!”
The Arminian cannot say that. He believes that God’s grace is given to all people equally and therefore that which ultimately differentiates the saved from the unsaved is not God’s grace, but man’s choice. Well may he look upon those who perish and say: “Apart from my choice there goes I!”
Let the reader decide which most glorifies God and leaves no room for boasting.
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
I don’t hold to one specific view on the subject, but the way I understand scripture is that God exercises His sovereignty through human free will. I don’t see what Calvinists do with scriptures like “he is patient, not willing that ANY should perish, but ALL come to repentance”. I’m not sure if that scripture was discussed with Dr. White or not.
I understand that God knew exactly what would happen, and created the world in such a way that He did because He had to (in the sense that it was in line with His character to do so). Example – If God is love, He had to make objects of His love or else love would just be some idea (not a reality). Objects of God’s love would be objects in which God could manifest every characteristic of love to (i.e. patience is the first attribute of love explained in 1 Cor. 13). How could patience be a reality if there was not an object to be patient with? God is slow to anger; for this to be true there must be someone to be “slow to anger” with.
I guess a proof text for this could be Romans 3:5 – our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly. Unrighteousness must exist to display God’s character. The next verse explains how God is still just in His judgment.
This, to me, explains why God created the world knowing that man would fall.
In Ephesians 1:4-5 – he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. in love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons…
- we were predestined to BE ADOPTED. God knew that we would have to be adopted and planned it according to His love (V.4), His pleasure (v.5), His Praise (v.6) and His grace (v.6). All of these attributes of God are seen (made a reality) in the plan of redemption.
… Ephesians 1:13 and you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him…
- verses 2-7 show God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge (and the purpose), and Verse 13 shows His sovereignty and foreknowledge working in time, and through free will.
I don’t know if I’m the only one that this makes sense to. But I will always revert to Romans 11:33 – oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
i guess that’s it for my “2 cents”
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
Nelson Banuchi,
John MacArthur has a double doctorate and is an author of so many books and commentaries that it is hard to count…
So he has more than “something” to offer but he will not debate. He simply believes that debates do not bring a whole lot of results… Sometimes, just like recently I would agree with him.
SDG
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
Bad Hermeneutics
http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100129
John MacArthur
Amply on time regarding many Arminians as well as their interest in John MacArthur
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
Nelson Banuchi
And other Arminains who do not understand Reformed Faith and consistently misrepresent it.
As to your affirmations as to supposedly faith turned into work by Reformed. I do not know how could you claim such a preposterous thing when Reformed Believer knows that nothing, I repeat NOTHING comes apart from the will and grace of God.
I would suggest to you that if anyone claims that his salvation and faith hinges on his or hers “yes” to God that gives rise to your assertion of work as well as boasting.
There is no two wills of God. There is only our matter of conception that is trying to explain ONE will of God in a way that we can begin to relate to that will.
I suggest you read this and go to the link provided:
“Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act so that he sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).”
Francis Turretin
Source: http://www.monergism.com/TwoWillsTurretin.html
Thank you for your time spend there.
SDG
Christophe
January 29th, 2010 @ 9:29 pm
Christophe,
FYI, I think Xavier is a Unitarian not an Arminian or a Roman Catholic.
Steve
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
Steve,
Thanks. Whatever he is, he is a sinner in a desperate need of mercy and grace just like all of us. May it be shown to him according to Lord’s will.
“all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
Daniel 4:35 ESV
SDG
Christophe
January 30th, 2010 @ 1:29 am
That’s is really interesting. I did not know what a calviness was until now. I hear people say all the time that everyone will not be saved. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t preach the gospel to every creature but to the Jew first does it?
I will continued to preach the gospel no matter what I think it says because in some countries our brothers and sisters are being killed for the gospel sake. Maybe a calviness might think well maybe they are preaching to the unregenerate ones thats why they are being killed.
January 30th, 2010 @ 3:10 am
Going on the lines of debating a Cessationist, how about having a guest on the radio who turned from being a cessationist to now believing the spiritual gifts are for today. I think Jack Deere would be a good pick. For those who do not know, he used to be a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.
January 30th, 2010 @ 3:35 am
I’m still undecided as to which of the Cessationist or Continuationalist views are more Scriptural. Though I very much respect Dr. MacArthur, I agree that his arguments in favour of Cessationism are pretty weak (especially his argument from 1 Cor. 13:10-11). The best argument I’ve ever heard in favour of Cessationism is the so-called “cascade argument” made by Dr. Sam Waldron in his book “To Be Continued?” It would be great if Dr. Brown could debate Dr. Waldron on this topic!
January 30th, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
Ben2, have you read my book Israel’s Divine Healer? The implications of that study are quite damning for cessationism. How about Jon Ruthven’s On the Cessation of the Charismata? I’d recommend that as well.
To be perfectly candid (and NOT to get into the whole discussion here and now), I see the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism to be a very intense, scriptural debate with both sides able to marshal many verses and concepts to back their views (although ultimatlely, I reject Calvinism). I see no scriptural support of any kind for cessationism. Zero. Seriously. Just to put my cards on the table! I will, however, check out the Waldron book you mentioned and will look at with interest.
January 30th, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
Christophe, “John MacArthur has a double doctorate” in what?
January 30th, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Christophe you said, “Nelson. And other Arminains who do not understand Reformed Faith and consistently misrepresent it.”
Would you be so kind as to show me exactly where on these blogs rearding Calvinism I have misrepresented it. Thank you.
January 30th, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Christophe, you misunderstoo when it was said, that “faith turned into work by Reformed.”
That is not how the Calvinist define faith, that is how Calvinist assert others (particularly Arminians) are making faith out to be when they suggest that man has a part in salvation.
As far as the “two wills” theory, that is something White asserted. You need to go on his blog and tell him he is wrong to sa God has “two wills”. In any case, the idea that God desires all men to be saved and yet decrees only a certain number will actually be saved is, for all intents and purposes, ludicrous; if that’s the case, no one can tell what God really desires even if it’s written in the Bible.
January 30th, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
The last point raised about Judas could be examined more if there had been more time. One way to look at predestination as was the final topic of the show, (and Dr. Brown hinted at this with the football analogy) is to understand the way that prophecy works. Prophecy while being in many cases the declared word of God to people is often precognition: Knowing what is going to happen. Because God in his infinite knowledge and omniscience saw our lives played out and knew that his work of grace would be received by our choice to love him, he therefore choose us before the foundations of the earth, Eph. 1:4. Imagine this, as the God-head looks down the halls of possible history in pondering the creation of the world, the Lord saw that in creating the angels, Lucifer would be filled w/ pride and rebel, he saw the fall of man, the law given to the Hebrews, all the prophets, and the redemptive work of Christ that would be necessary. And in totality, from his perfect wisdom, he saw the final outcome you and me and the “elect” in Christ (who choose because they were given the faith to choose and responded at the calling of the Spirit) and saw that he would get the most glory from the whole thing. So he created, we fell, and because he saw us choose Him in the end, we were therefore chosen by God. His desire is that ALL might be saved and NONE should perish. Therefore, Judas in point, played out his role in history before it was prophecied and God saw that and then revealed in his word because that is how it was to happen. But in fact, we know that we can move the heart of God by faith. Which is what the whole message of redemption is. By our sin nature, WE ALL DESERVE DEATH, by adam all fell. But God’s gift of faith is offered to us and if we respond, then that changes our future destination. E.g., God was going to destroy the nation of Israel because of their idolatry and evil, Moses PLEADS with God that his anger not burn against them, and God CHANGED his mind. If Moses had not responded to God placing that opportunity of faith before him, that event would have occured. Jonah proclaimed the word of Gof to Neniveh and they repented and believed that which was unseen (that God might spare them). God’s word was: “Forty more days and Nineveh WILL BE overturned.”…but “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.”. Another example, Jesus’s first miracle when Mary comes to Jesus and gives him a problem. It was not yet “his time” but her faith was evident in that she told the servents to “do whatever he tells you”. There was some obvious shift by which it became his time and he performed his first miracle. Please someone expand on this, I just wanted to get this down while it was still on my heart. I’ll be watching this post.
January 30th, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
“As far as the “two wills” theory, that is something White asserted. You need to go on his blog and tell him he is wrong to sa God has “two wills”. In any case, the idea that God desires all men to be saved and yet decrees only a certain number will actually be saved is, for all intents and purposes, ludicrous; if that’s the case, no one can tell what God really desires even if it’s written in the Bible.”
Dear Nelson,
As I said before there is no “two wills” of God. Dr.White said that but he said it for the purposes of explaining and conceptualizing the complexity of GOD and His will. You have heard Dr.Brown stating many, many times that GOD is complex in His unity and that is very true. It that is true then what makes you or Dr. Brown think that GOD’s will is NOT also COMPLEX?
Have you read Francis Turretin? Have you went on the link that I provided? If not I would like to encourage you to do so.
I know that this is not an easy concept to perceive but so is Triune nature of GOD – ONE BEING of three co equal persons in perfect harmony, unity through all of the eternity.
When Dr. White speaks about “two wills” its like speaking of sunrise sun and sunset sun. They look different, they are happen the opposite side of the sky, they find and the leave the hemisphere in very much different conditions they make all life to adjust to them yet they are caused by ONE and the SAME STAR – SUN.
So Dr.White can speak about sunrise and all of the different conditions surrounding it and and what it causes as well speak about sunset and all of the conditions surrounding it and what is causes and yet STILL speak about the SAME SUN.
And so it is with the will of GOD. His will is COMPLEX as His nature is COMPLEX. Please read this again, and again if necessary but I believe this argument is BIBLICAL and helps to understand in a consistent manner all of those passages that otherwise we find difficult or ambiguous as some Arminian confessed on this forum prior.
If you spend time with Scripture reviewing Turretin’s argument you will find that there is nothing “ludicrous” about GOD who calls all to salvation yet same GOD effecting that for some based on His good will and pleasure.
“May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose (eudokias) and good pleasure (euarestias), signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.
I. Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act so that he sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).
II. Hence have arisen various distinctions of the will of God. The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will. The former means that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter what he wills that we should do. The former relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts; the latter is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action. The former cannot be resisted and is always fulfilled: “Who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). The latter is often violated by men: “How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not (Mt. 23:37).
III. As there are various passages of Scripture in which the will of God is taken either for the decree (Rom. 9:19; Eph. 1:ll) or for the precept (Ps. 143:10; Rom. 12:2), so there are also some in which both wills of God are signified at the same time (i.e., Jn. 6:38, where Christ says, “I came down to do the will of him that sent me” [i.e., to fulfil the things decreed by God and to obey the command of the Father]). And when we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done,” we ask that our lives may correspond to his precepts and his decrees be fulfilled.”
Francis Turretin
More: http://www.monergism.com/TwoWillsTurretin.html
SDG
Christophe
January 30th, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
Nelson Banuchi,
John MacArthur has a doctorate from Talbot School of Theology I believe in Biblical Ministry and honoris causa doctorate from Grace Graduate School.
Christophe
January 30th, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
Dr. Brown,
Not to get off topic (well sorta), but you’re right-on with the cessationist nonsense. Not sure if you caught my previous post, but I’ve read/heard quite a bit from the cessationist side and have been completely unmoved by any of it. Would White be willing to debate you on that subject? He’s debated the issue of tongues before, but his opponent held a view that kind-of went to far in the other direction (i.e. unless someone speaks in tongues it’s evidence that they’re not even saved), and it wasn’t considering the apostolic/revelatory gifts as a whole. And considering that Dr. White hasn’t debated/written on the issue of cessationism for decades as he has Calvinism, that would be a very interesting exchange indeed (see above note on “mopping the floor”).
Something else that we should all consider is that the cessationist debate has much more immediate/practical implications for us as individuals and for the church as a whole. If we recognize/discover that the gifts are for today then that certainly will have a greater effect than if we discovered that God has decretively willed that they have ceased, but prescriptively commanded us to operate in them
(my cheap way of bringing it back to topic at hand 
January 30th, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
…went “too” far. Sorry, can’t let that go when addressing someone with a PhD in Semitics
January 30th, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
John,
I haven’t caught all the posts here these days, so I did miss yours. Thanks for this additional one.
I’ve actually suggested to Dr. White on a few occasions that we debate cessationism, but if he’s not inclined to, I’m sure I could find someone else willing to.
As for your attempt to bring things back on topic —
January 30th, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
Ben2’s point about the two wills on each side is a great one. Arminians say God desires all to be saved but He wants it to be a free choice. He could orchestrate things where all are saved but He doesn’t.
In regards to why Calvinists believe the Arminian view makes faith a work, please consider the following scenario. Two brothers, both get exposed to the gospel, only one accepts. If you are an Arminian, wouldn’t you have to say that one is either smarter or morally superior in some way.
If faith doesn’t rise to the level of a work, it least is a cause for boasting.
However, if faith is a gift solely from God, all glory goes to God. Not saying that Arminians don’t give glory to God for their salvation.
I think most Arminians pray and worship inconsistently with their Arminianism. I would assume most Arminians believe Calvinists evangelize inconsistently with their Calvinism.
January 30th, 2010 @ 9:12 pm
“I think most Arminians pray and worship inconsistently with their Arminianism. I would assume most Arminians believe Calvinists evangelize inconsistently with their Calvinism.”
Geoff,
DITTO.
SDG
Christophe
January 30th, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
I would have to disagree with the Armenian analogy of the last point. I am like Dr. Brown: here are MY beliefs from the word of God, categorize may where you may. But If two people hear the gospel, and only one is GIVEN faith, then you cannot say that they both had an equal calling to be saved at that time. Just because someone hears the message preached at that time, it may not be time for them to come to Christ at that time. God’s will is that ALL might be saved. And if both brothers are to be the elected few, and one responds later, how can you say that the other brother had some earthly advantage. We have to regard each other outside of earthly consideration, via 2 Cor. (ministry of reconciliation). Basically, Paul sais, “we once regarded Jesus in this way, but no longer,” Jews considered him at least a teacher, and at best a prophet to gentiles, but spiritually we look at Christ as deity. In the same way, it is not just our decision to respond the first time, but the unity of faith from God and our response to that faith. I believe someone may hear the truth their whole lives, and receive at least one opportunity of faith. And at that point, they must decide. Faith must married to works, you can’t have works removed from faith, and faith without works is DEAD. Therefore, we all give glory to God for his salvation which he accomplished on the cross, and we remember that we once were lost but now are found. We don’t say, “Thankyou Jesus that I choose to believe in you because I have a high IQ.” But anyways.
January 30th, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
Geoff,
Yes, I can’t agree for a split second with your analogy either, and to be honest, I’ve not yet met someone who took credit for their salvation. Plus, your analogy would then vitiate Paul’s whole point about if salvation is by faith, then it’s by grace.
You then state, “I think most Arminians pray and worship inconsistently with their Arminianism. I would assume most Arminians believe Calvinists evangelize inconsistently with their Calvinism.”
That very statement (on the first point) proves me to that you genuinely don’t understand in the least what we actually believe, otherwise you could never had said that. I bow down before a sovereign God who does what He pleases in heaven and on the earth 24-7. I assume you bow down to the same God?
One of my principles in doing apologetics and debates is that before you can respond to someone, you need to adequately understand them to the point that you can repeat their beliefs back to them in different words, to their satisfaction. I’d encourage you to understand our views better first, then your interaction will be more fruitful. And feel free to help those who differ with you understand your views better.
January 30th, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
Dr. Brown, I believe I am accurately understanding the other side esp. since I was on the other side. When Arminians pray for someone’s salvation, they don’t pray “please bring this person to faith but in such a way where their free will is not violated.”
That’s not an insult to Arminians but a complement.
Now, there’s a question you need to flesh out with Dr. White in debate. You believe God is sovereign. You were constantly affirming that it was God’s ardent desire to have all come to Messiah. You were also not keen on the idea that God could have two wills.
Obviously, God doesn’t give everyone a Damascus Road experience like He did for Paul. He could arrange all circumstances where everyone came to faith but He doesn’t.
Wouldn’t you have to also affirm two desires in God as well?
January 31st, 2010 @ 12:12 am
Geoff, first, there’s no inconsistency in the the theology and the praying, and in fact, I’m fine with praying biblical prayers verbatim. Both my theology and my praxis come from that same source. Also, the Word tells us at the end of Ezekiel 22 that God would have intervened had someone prayed but no intercessor was found. So, I pray for God to save people knowing that He will respond to those prayers according to what is in harmony with His best intentions and in accordance with the principles He has laid out. And I also know that if I don’t pray or if others don’t pray, certain things might not happen. That’s simply the way the Sovereign Lord set things up.
As for Saul’s experience, who said that his response was sealed and irresistible? And how do you know that God didn’t move the way He did because He saw something truly seeking in Saul’s heart? It’s also very probable that Saul was especially targeted for prayer by the early believers, in accordance with Yeshua’s exhortation to pray for the persecutors, hence he would have been singled out for divine intervention.
Also, the entire nation of Israel coming out of Egypt saw the greatest demonstration of God’s power that any generation ever saw, yet most of that generation rejected the Lord. I know people who had supernatural encounters with God that floored them, then they hardened their hearts and turned away.
One God, one will, just as the Word teaches.
That being said, I’m still not convinced you’re accurately understanding the other side, even though you were “there.” Perhaps you’re projecting how you felt while “there” rather than asking if I see things the same way you did? Do you think that might be possible?
January 31st, 2010 @ 2:44 am
Dr. Brown,
My comment to you is not directed or a reply to the comments here.
I am just wondering if you studied the Lutheran Confessions when you left Calvinism. I say this for after being a Pentecostal for many years I parked my tent in Calvinism for 4 years, only then when I compared the Lutheran Confessions have I discovered that it is compatible with how I understand Scripture’s teaching on justification, faith, repentance, predestination, above all the Sacraments etc.
LPC
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:12 am
Hey folks,
I just came across this post by a Calvinist in another forum and it illustrates the point we’ve been making about Calvinists claiming that faith is some kind of a work (here, he puts it in the context of “boasting”). The individual posting had listened to the debates and felt that I had “cognitive dissonance” in certain aspects of my theology, expressly stating:
***** “boasting” – If one’s salvation is (at least) partly (no matter how small a part) due to your knowledge/spirituality/whatever which makes you choose with your “free will” what someone else doesn’t, there is room for boasting. “But the Bible says we are not to boast, so that’s why we don’t boast”. He makes it sound like it’s a matter of manners, or propriety, or not offending others, when in fact the Bible’s reason for not boasting is because there is no basis for boasting.****
So, according to this position — which, again, I’ve heard time and again from Calvinists — if we receive God’s gift by faith, then somehow we have something to boast about, since this was a choice we made. What an unbiblical concept! Not only does it make faith into some kind of meritorious act, but it makes the act of receiving God’s gift into some kind of meritorious act.
Please, someone, show me one verse in the Bible that explicitly states that if we believe God, we have something to boast about, or if we repent, we have something to boast about, or if we say yest to God, we have something to boast about. To the contrary, these are the very things that draw God’s praise!
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:14 am
Sorry. “Yes” not “yest.”
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:15 am
Dr. Brown, I agree with you that there is no boasting in simply receiving the gift of salvation. The reason why the Arminian has a reason for boasting comes to light when we ask the question why one person was saved and the other person was not.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Calvinists affirm that the only difference between the saved and the unsaved is God’s grace. Arminians cannot affirm this since they believe that God’s grace is given to everyone equally and therefore the reason why one person is saved and another is not has nothing to do with God’s grace and everything to do with man’s decision. The Calvinist can look at the soul who perished and affirm: “But for the grace of God there goes I!” The Arminian cannot say this and might well look on the one who has perished and say: “But for my choice there goes I!”
If Arminianism is correct one cannot escape the conclusion that the saved person must have been just a little less hardened (or a little more intelligent) than the unsaved person since he was willing to accept God’s offer of salvation while the other refused. Spurgeon summarized it succinctly in his sermon called “Free Will – A Slave” when he gave an example of how consistent Arminians aught to pray in the light of this:
“Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.”
S.D.G.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:40 am
Dr. Brown,
I would love to get your thoughts from my 2 questions asked on the first page of comments (post 35).
Blessings in Christ,
Lee
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:38 am
Its best if you repost it instead of trying to search/count post 35
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:52 am
Sorry, I meant to say “ought to pray…”
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:12 am
Dr. Brown,
Doesn’t something generally go unrecognized in all these debates? It is that Calvinists and non-Calvinists do not share the same meaning of words. “Sovereign” is but one example. Other examples include “faith,” “work,” “grace,” ” free will,” “saved,” “predicative,” (etc.) and, yes, even the words “man” and “God.” For if the Calvinist claims the Arminian makes “faith” a “work,” then what does the Calvinist mean by “faith”? Answer: “God predicating,” nothing more. And so “man” becomes an empty term.
So then, in the statement:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of worls, lest any man should boast”
the words “ye,” “yourselves” and “man” are empty terms. And since empty terms cannot predicate “faith” (nor anything else), the Calvinist confession is that One Will alone is manifesting its predication, and there is nothing besides (including an object of the predication). But, objects one, “Predication demands an object for the subject.” Exactly. And so “predicating” becomes a meaningless term as well.
In the end, there is only “God,” for the Calvinist, i.e., a God who is beyond language because language has failed him. In short, Calvinism is a denial of language altogether. The trick is simple but effective: Calvinism merely appears to have meaning because of its use of pschycological association to the real meaning of the vocal sounds and written symbols of words.
January 31st, 2010 @ 10:53 am
@ Dr. Brown: “Please, someone, show me one verse in the Bible that explicitly states that if we believe God, we have something to boast about, or if we repent, we have something to boast about, or if we say yest to God, we have something to boast about.”
Of course we won’t find such a verse because the reason people believe God and repent is because God grants it to them, which removes all grounds for boasting on our part. But if believing God and repenting is something we do by our own free will, THEN we should expect to find such a verse since we WOULD have something to boast about.
January 31st, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
One Calvinist states: “I will tell you exactly when faith in Christ is a work (that is, a work OF MAN). Exercising faith in Christ is made to be a work when it is taught to be something which is left up to man to exercise or not and the determinant cause of his faith finally rests with him.”
Calvinists say that if you *voluntarily* believed, then you *can* boast of your volunteerism. Romans 3:27, however, points out something that refutes that idea, which is that when you believe, you *can’t* boast. In other words, whether you believe voluntarily or involuntarily, it makes no difference, since the “law of faith” excludes all boasting under all circumstances, especially since faith is not about trusting in yourself, but about trusting in someone else, namely, God. But to a Calvinist, only a “law of irresistibility” can successfully mitigate against boasting. Why? Because the Calvinist conclusion is more philosophical than biblical.
January 31st, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
Quoting the second caller, “Mo”:
“Is the unregenerate man ‘dead’? Has he been wounded? … The sinner is ‘dead’ in trespasses and sins. Now what can a ‘dead mean’ do? Can a dead man believe? Can a dead man repent? Can a dead man come? No! He’s dead; he’s absolutely dead. When men are born, they are naturally and spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, and they cannot come to Christ. No man can come to Me, except the Father which has sent Me, draw him, and that’s Scripture, that’s not a creed. That’s Scripture. All that the Father gives Me, John 6:37, all that the Father gives Me, they’re going to come to Me; nobody else is going to come, because it takes the work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate, to give life, before a man can believe and repent, a dead man cannot do anything.”
Nevertheless, although it is a Scripture verse, namely John 6:37 and John 6:44, it is cited acontextually as a simple proof-text, built upon the concept of spiritual deadness at Ephesians 2:1, which is also cited acontextually. Therefore, the whole thing might as well be a creed. Looking at Ephesians 2:1, where does it ever ask the question: “What can a dead man do?” Looking at John 6:44, where does it ever say that the Holy Spirit must regenerate? The Calvinist superimposes his own creeds upon Scripture, in order to declare it Scripture. Here is what Ephesians 2:11-13 actually does say about deadness: “Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands–remember that you were at that time *separate* from Christ, *excluded* from the commonwealth of Israel, and *strangers* to the covenants of promise, having *no hope* and *without God* in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were *far off* have been brought *near* by the blood of Christ.” The contextual concept of deadness, according to Ephesians 2:1-13, is not an inability to receive God’s gift to return to Him, but separation from Him, in terms of being in a state of condemnation, brought about by sin. In fact, if we really do want to look at the question of “what can a dead man do,” although this is not addressed at Ephesians 2:1, it can be found in the parable of the Prodigal Son, whom his father called “dead” and now alive: “‘Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.” (Luke 15:22-24) Once again, we see deadness in terms of separation from God, rather than an inability to receive His gift to return to Him.
January 31st, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
Ben2 and Sam,
Do you not see how you state what you want to prove? Romans 4 makes plain that if salvation is by our WORKS as opposed to by FAITH, then there is grounds for boasting. If it is by FAITH, then it is by GRACE. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR BOASTING IN ARMINIANISM. The idea that there is is a figment of the Calvinistic imagination.
Sam said: “Of course we won’t find such a verse because the reason people believe God and repent is because God grants it to them, which removes all grounds for boasting on our part. But if believing God and repenting is something we do by our own free will, THEN we should expect to find such a verse since we WOULD have something to boast about.”
Sam, I mean you no insult, but this is one the most remarkable cases of circular reasoning and of stating what you want to prove that I have ever seen. The Bible EXPLICITLY teaches the opposite of what you affirm (as I just stated), and since you can’t find your doctrine taught, you say, “Well that proves my point and explains why the Bible never needs to mention it.” Do you not see this?
Richard’s comments are also quite correct and scriptural in terms of the deadness issue, which covers the other, related issues.
This last, short interchange demonstrates one of the biggest points I have been trying to make and shows how one group is simply following the scriptural testimony about choosing life vs. death, in response to the divine command (nothing to boast when you receive God’s gift!), while the other group has to impose a theological system on the texts that at times violates there explicit meaning.
If I were on the radio now, I would say, “Wow!”
January 31st, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
More evidence for the different ways in which Scripture speaks about the will of God:
Ezekiel 33:11 states unambiguously that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would rather that they turn from their sins and live. Yet, in Matthew 11:21-24, the Lord Jesus states just as unambiguously that it was in God’s power to bring the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repentance but that He didn’t do so.
I affirm with Ezekiel that God truly had no pleasure in the destruction of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom and sincerely desired that they should repent and live (God’s will of disposition), but propose that God had an even greater desire than the salvation of these cities (i.e. to “show his wrath and to make known his power… in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy” – Romans 9:22-23) and therefore didn’t bring it to pass even though he was clearly able to do so (God’s decretive will).
How do Arminians reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages?
January 31st, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
Dr. Brown, I agree that Romans 4 teaches that the law of faith excludes boasting IN OUR WORKS since our righteousness is not our own, but Christ’s (received through faith, not earned).
Romans 4 is not, however, the only place where Paul mentions boasting. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that we cannot boast on any other grounds either since salvation (the entire package including faith) is by grace alone – a gift from God. Though the Arminian affirms that he cannot boast in his works he still has grounds for boasting in his decision since the one thing he simply CANNOT say is that it is God’s grace alone that differentiates the saved from the unsaved (since God’s grace is given equally to all according to Arminian teaching).
S.D.G.
January 31st, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Ben2,
First, Romans 4 proves the point I was making, and your comments do not refute that at all.
Second, Ephesians 2 does not teach that faith is a gift (the grammar doesn’t agree, as I’m sure you know, and as most commentators state), but that salvation is a gift, received by faith — thus there is no room for boasting. You really miss the whole point of what Paul teaches in Romans 4 and what Jesus teaches in John 6 (re: faith vs. works).
I repeat: Nowhere in the Bible it is taught that receiving a gift is a grounds for boasting, and, in fact, there are scores of passages that teach the opposite. Perhaps the prodigal son should have boasted because he came to his senses and received his father’s unmerited love! Perhaps Abram should have boasted when he first believed God! Perhaps I should have boasted when I received His grace and believed Him to save me!
To be candid, it’s a bit frustrating to deal with circular arguments like yours, and until you see — as I’ll state, hopefully for the last time — that you are asserting what you want to prove, using your logic even when you have to reinterpret the Word, you’ll be unable to have a meaningful dialog.
Your argument is analogous to the man who stands on the street corner clapping his hands, and when asked why says, “I’m keeping the elephants away.” To which someone says, “But there are no elephants for 100 miles in any direction!” To which he replies, “See, it’s working!”
My entire boast in the Lord, and in Him alone (1 Cor 1:25-30), and in more than 38 years of walking with Him, it is never once occurred to me (not for a split second of a single thought) that I had any grounds for boasting as to my salvation, nor have I ever met a single believer who “boasted” that they received God’s gift of grace.
Sadly, the more posts I read, the more I realize how an entirely false construct is being made by some (many?) Calvinists, one that deeply misunderstands and at times misrepresents non-Calvinist views, and one that adds things to the Word that God never intended to be added (and I don’t mean in a damning way, obviously, but in a way of reading a system into Scripture that simply isn’t there).
More sadly, for many years now, many of the Calvinists I’ve met (I’m not accusing you of this) have been inflated with pride over their Calvinism, over their alleged “Orthodoxy,” over alone having the “doctrines of grace,” indeed, having “the gospel” as over against those who are not Calvinists. And so, this system of belief which is supposed to undercut all pride and boasting so often results in the opposite.
I could just as well argue that your system is the very grounds for boasting, since somehow God chose you and not someone else, for His sovereign reason alone. But if I said this, it would be the exact opposite of what you believe (in terms of a grounds for boasting) and would prove that I didn’t understand your views. Well, this is exactly the same thing of your imposing your understanding on my views. You’re missing the point entirely.
One last point: God is relational, and He wants us to choose life and salvation and HIM volitionally, enabled by His grace to do so. This is what He desires, this is what the Word teaches from beginning to end, and this is what I affirm.
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
@Dr. Brown: “Sam, I mean you no insult, but this is one the most remarkable cases of circular reasoning and of stating what you want to prove that I have ever seen. The Bible EXPLICITLY teaches the opposite of what you affirm (as I just stated), and since you can’t find your doctrine taught, you say, “Well that proves my point and explains why the Bible never needs to mention it.” Do you not see this?”
No, I don’t. I did not say that since I can’t find my doctrine taught, that proves my point and explains why the Bible never needs to mention it. I can’t imagine how you got that from what I said. Let me try to explain myself a little more clearly.
You asked for Calvinists to give you a scripture quote saying that if we believe or repent, then we have something to boast about, as if that’s what we would need to prove our point of view. But finding such a verse would not prove the Calvinist point of view. On the contrary, it would DISPROVE the Calvinist view. If Calvinism is true, then we should not expect to find such a verse since it would be inconsistent with Calvinism. Why, then, do you require Calvinists to find such a verse in order to prove their point of view? It makes no sense. If we found such a verse, it would DISPROVE our point of view. In our point of view, both our repentence and our faith are given to us by God, leaving no room for boasting on our parts.
Ben2 raises some very good points. If two people hear the gospel, one person repents, and the other doesn’t, what is the difference in your view? How do you account for why one person repents, but the other doesn’t, without giving the one person something to boast about?
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
Sam, once again, you proved my point. The Word does not support your point, which, you claim, proves your point, because if it addressed the issue, that would disprove your point. Again, I can only say “Wow.” And I repeat: The Bible DOES address the point but says the opposite of what you believe. (I’ll not belabor the point again.)
Here’s the bottom line: If you simply said, “Look, I believe that what the Bible teaches about predestination and calling is clear and therefore I hold to unconditional election,” I would respectfully differ with your interpretation but would fully understand why you would hold to it, as I once did as well. But when you make false assumptions about someone else’s belief then ignore clear biblical teaching that refutes your view — namely, this false construct about grounds for boasting — then there’s really nothing to talk about.
I might just as well as say this to you, “Your view makes God into a monster, and the proof of my point is that nowhere does the Bible address the idea that He is not a monster, therefore I’m right and you’re wrong.”
I’m really not trying to win an argument here, just trying to help you see that all this talk about a grounds for non-Calvinistic boasting is both a false construct, a false reading of someone else’s beliefs, and a misreading of the Word.
Since the matter is so utterly perspicuous to me, and since you seem not to see these points at all, let’s just drop it for now, OK? I don’t think going around in circles will be helpful.
I will, however, answer your last question one last time: If a person earned their salvation through their own good works, then they could boast about it. But when they accept a gift totally undeserved, they have no grounds for boasting. That is what the NT clearly affirms, so your argument is not with me but with Scripture.
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
Dr. Brown, after reading your last post to Ben2, I wonder if maybe there is some misunderstanding going on. I especially got that feeling when I read these words:
“My entire boast in the Lord, and in Him alone (1 Cor 1:25-30), and in more than 38 years of walking with Him, it is never once occurred to me (not for a split second of a single thought) that I had any grounds for boasting as to my salvation, nor have I ever met a single believer who “boasted” that they received God’s gift of grace.”
Nobody is claiming that non-Calvinists boast about their choice to repent or receive God’s gift, or that they see any reason to. What we arguing is that if your position is true, then you would have grounds for boasting. Having grounds for boasting follows from your point of view. We don’t claim that non-Calvinists are consistent, after all. This is the argument in a nutshell.
1. If we choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense), then we have grounds for boasting.
2. We do not have grounds for boasting.
3. Therefore, we do not choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense).
You see, we are making a reductio ad absurdum argument against your point of view by taking it to its logical conclusion. The fact that you don’t take it to its logical conclusion shows an inconsistency on your part. I get the impression that you think we are saying faith and repentance actually do give us grounds for boasting, and perhaps that’s why you’re pressing us to find a verse that says so. But that is not what we are saying. In fact, we’re saying just the opposite.
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
Dr. Brown, your most recent post to me confirms that you really are having a misunderstanding about what I am saying. And maybe I’m having a misunderstanding about what you are saying. But I don’t know how to be any more clear than I’ve already been. So I’ll drop the subject, and if you’re so inclined, you can go back and read my posts more carefully.
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
“More sadly, for many years now, many of the Calvinists I’ve met (I’m not accusing you of this) have been inflated with pride over their Calvinism, over their alleged “Orthodoxy,” over alone having the “doctrines of grace,” indeed, having “the gospel” as over against those who are not Calvinists. And so, this system of belief which is supposed to undercut all pride and boasting so often results in the opposite.”
Dr.Brown,
You keep on repeating this opinion as that in itself would have any bearing WHATSOEVER on biblical theology of Reformed Faith. Sorry but this is just painting with 12 inch brush on a A4 sheet of paper.
You have to ask yourself why do you keep on repeating this? You don’t hear constantly from Calvinists about proud Arminians are you? You don’t because Calvinists are interested in duscussing the Scripture, the arguments, the historical facts and not PERSONAL application of belief in one’s personal life.
Do you presume that there is no prideful and arrogant Arminians? There is plenty of them and they walk around repeating to everyone: “my ministry”, “my approach” , “my gifts” , “my perception” taking their decisiveness to the next level all of that because deep inside they hold on to that belief that their decision for Christ was a crucial part of their salvation.
I know you do discuss Scripture and arguments based on it but you also tend to mix it with your personal reception of personal application of faith in the lives of others. Poor application of the truth does not invalidate the truth so please stay solely on the Scripture and do not mix it with people and their poor or excellent application of faith in their lives.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
Christophe,
First, I make this point in certain contexts, which you can review for yourself. I constantly address scriptural issues and when there are related points to make, I do so.
Second, I hear constant slurs against Arminian beliefs, Arminian fealty to the Word, the Arminian view of God, the dangers of Arminians, the sloppiness of Arminians — the list goes on and on. And we are allegedly the ones who give ourselves grounds for boasting in our salvation — which would be the very root and heart of pride!
In light of this, your last point is not well taken and is certainly not needed here. You do best to turn the spotlight on yourself for a while, sir.
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
Faith is not a work which somehow negates the free grace of Christ. How ridiculous. In fact, faith (believing) is the one work that Jesus commanded that we do.
In John 6:28-29 the people asked Him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One he has sent.”
Believing in Jesus is the only prerequisite for receiving God’s free grace. Otherwise, Jesus would have said, “Nothing. My Father must regenerate you.”
Even if you believe that personal faith in Christ is a work which would invalidate God’s grace, there are still problems with your conclusions. It seems to me for your beliefs to be true then God would have to take TOTAL possession of your mind and/or mouth. Otherwise, it could still be said that, although God enabled you to believe, you still either mentally or vocally, made the ultimate decision to trust in Christ for salvation; thereby, according to your own theories, performing a grace voiding work.
January 31st, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Sam,
My last post on this (hopefully).
You wrote, “Nobody is claiming that non-Calvinists boast about their choice to repent or receive God’s gift, or that they see any reason to. What we arguing is that if your position is true, then you would have grounds for boasting. Having grounds for boasting follows from your point of view. We don’t claim that non-Calvinists are consistent, after all. This is the argument in a nutshell.”
That’s the whole point. You’re making a claim that God’s Word doesn’t make. Don’t you see it? It’s your logic rather than the truth of God’s Word. If we believe God and receive His gift, there is no grounds for boasting. Period. You claim the contrary, but the Word does not. So I don’t think the issue is misunderstanding each other; I think the issue is you’re failing to see how you’re erecting a system of thought about boasting that is contrary to what the Word says.
You claim I’m being logically inconsistent, but you are the one who is making “logical” deductions contrary to what the Word says. Can you not see this point , or, at least, see it through my eyes?
This is why I often say that Calvinists come with certain theological assumptions (the “grid” of their system) and then try to make the Word fit that system.
Again, we’ll leave things here, but I believe this interchange has only served to prove the point I have been wanting to make re: faith being perceived as a work or as a grounds for boasting.
May the Lord continue to lead all us into His grace and truth, for surely that is all that we desire.
Be blessed!
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
Dr. Brown, I’m sorry if I have misrepresented your view. I truly did not mean to suggest that you (or any Arminian for that matter) are actually boasting in anything other than the Lord.
You’re right. It’s ridiculous to say that Abram or the prodigal son boasted because of the free gift they received. That was not my point however. What if Abram’s gift was not offered to him alone. What if God appeared to everyone alike and offered them the same gift but only Abram accepted it. Though the gift was not merited and he could never boast before God, wouldn’t he be justified in boasting before all men that, in the very least, he new a good thing when he saw it? I am NOT saying that you or any Arminian is boasting in this way, only that you would have grounds to do so if Arminianism is true. I truly do not see how this is a circle argument.
You say that “God is relational, and He wants us to choose life and salvation and HIM volitionally.” Of course Calvinists also believe this (God’s will of disposition), only that unless God gave us new hearts no-one would be willing to choose Him at all.
I cannot help but think that if one’s theology does not allow one affirm wholeheartedly that it is God’s grace ALONE that separates one from those who are perishing; he is missing something of the absolute wonder of God’s grace. “But for the grace of God there goes I!”
S.D.G.
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Greg,
Exactly. Here is the scene, in reality: We are confronted by a holy God against whom we have sinned our entire lives, knowingly or unknowingly. We see the incredible magnitude of our guilt and the rightful punishment of our sins. And we see the mercy of our Savior being offered — further intensifying our conviction of sin when we realize that it was our sins that nailed him to the cross. And we cry out, “God have mercy on me a sinner!”
Where is room for boasting in this? Really, the charge boggles my mind. Again, Jesus explicitly addresses this too in Luke 18 in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. How much clearer does the Word need to me?
And your further points are correct as well, if taken to their “logical” conclusion.
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
“In light of this, your last point is not well taken and is certainly not needed here. You do best to turn the spotlight on yourself for a while, sir.”
Dr.Brown,
I think your comment again highlights a difference of perception. The spot lite is the theology and biblical truth and not personal application of that truth in one’s life. That could be another topic for another debate. Certainly it is not me and I do not think it is fair for you to go toward personal direction again.
Sir, if you will listen to your conversation with Dr.White again you will surely notice that it was YOU who mentioned “prideful Calvinists” FIRST as your personal experience. Dr.White interacted with this observation presented by you. Yet he did not say first anything about “prideful Arminians” first…
I am sad to see that this theme and this sequence shows up here in this interaction. Yes, there are prideful Calvinists and yes there are prideful Arminians but repeating that observation does not help in the diolog nor does it bring anything of value to the discernment of biblical arguments.
I hope you will take it as a objective observation to help this discussion as that is how it is intended.
Thank you.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
Ben2,
You wrote, “I am NOT saying that you or any Arminian is boasting in this way, only that you would have grounds to do so if Arminianism is true.” False. The Word of God tells us the opposite, as I have repeated now almost endlessly. You say one thing; the Scriptures say another. According to the Arminian view, based on the explicit teaching of the NT, there is NO grounds for boasting!
As for your view of relationship, I see the testimony of Scripture again going in a different direction than the TULIP system, although, of course, I’m aware of how you see the relational side of things working.
Finally, you state, “I cannot help but think that if one’s theology does not allow one affirm wholeheartedly that it is God’s grace ALONE that separates one from those who are perishing; he is missing something of the absolute wonder of God’s grace. ‘But for the grace of God there goes I!’”
So, you confirm what I have been stating. You don’t get the non-Calvinist point of view, plain and simple. I can wholeheartedly make the “But for the grace of God” statement, but you can’t see how I can. That, in a nutshell, is the problem, and until you can see why the other person believes what he or she believes, you can’t have a constructive dialog with them.
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
Christophe,
No need to belabor the points here. But just FYI, my reason for bringing up the prideful Calvinists issue on the show was because of a derogatory, Arminian-deriding, self-congratulatory conversation that was taking place online in a pro-Dr. White forum, as the show was going on. During a break in the broadcast, someone emailed it to me, which reminded me of what I so often run into when interacting with Calvinists, and that’s why I brought it up. It was a present tense happening! Of course, I was blessed by Dr. White’s gracious and thoughtful response.
My comments stand, and I wish you God’s blessings.
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
Dr. Brown, in context Romans 4 is speaking about boasting before God on the grounds of meriting salvation because of works. Scripture says, and I affirm, that such boasting is indeed excluded by the law of faith. That is not, however, what I was referring to in my comment.
You say that you can wholeheartedly make the “But for the grace of God” statement. Perhaps so Dr. Brown, but you cannot be a consistent Arminian when doing so. Do Arminians not claim that God’s grace is given equally to everyone? If so, how then can one affirm that in the final instance it is God’s grace that separates the saved from the unsaved? It cannot be God’s grace and therefore I cannot see how a consistent Arminian can look on those who are perishing and say “But for the grace of God ALONE there goes I!”
God bless!
S.D.G.
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Dr Brown,
First of all, thank you for your recent interesting and respectful programs on Calvinism. I’ve not had chance to read all the comments posted here so forgive me if I’m bringing up something that you’ve already addressed, but as far as I can tell no one has discussed what I am about to say.
I think that you may have misrepresented Spurgeon. You do of course quote him correctly (as far as it goes):
“If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. [...] This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners.”
But then you say, “If you say someone has to be regenerated before they believe, I agree with Spurgeon’s take…”
And that, as far as I can tell (I’m happy to be corrected), is a misrepresentation. Spurgeon is not objecting (in that quoted sermon anyway) to the idea that a sinner must be regenerated before he will believe. He’s objecting to this:
“In our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ…”
Spurgeon nowhere says that a man must believe in order to be regenerated. He only says that he (Spugeon, the preacher) must preach Christ to unregenerate sinners, and bid sinners (not regenerated men) to believe.
This is logical and sensible and also biblical. But to assume therefore that faith precedes (or is a cause of) regeneration does not follow – not from Spurgeon’s sermon, nor from the Bible. Take the story of Lazarus as a perfect example.
Christ commanded a (thoroughly) dead man to come forth. (The preacher – with the command of God as warrant according to Spurgeon – bids unregenerate sinners believe.)
The command of Christ to Lazarus carried the power that caused the dead man to live. (The preaching of the Gospel is the power of God that brings life to – regenerates – the dead sinner.)
The now living Lazarus hears the voice of Christ and he responds and comes forth. (The now regenerated sinner hears His voice – “My sheep hear My voice” – and responds in faith – cf. John 10:26 – “you do not believe because you are not of My sheep”. )
I know that you may not agree with the “doctrine” here, but it does surely offer a sensible explanation of the point Spurgeon was making; an explanation that would make it somewhat unfair for you to quote him in defence (so to speak) of your own position.
I hope this comment comes across in the respectful way that it is intended. (I’m not always very successful in expressing myself in com-boxes!)
Thanks again,
Pagey.
January 31st, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
Ben2,
How about this being the last post on this subject for now, OK? You can always call my show to talk about this more.
You write: “Perhaps so Dr. Brown, but you cannot be a consistent Arminian when doing so.” Wrong. That is simply your lack of understanding things from our POV.
Here is where you have stated things correctly: “I cannot see how a consistent Arminian can look on those who are perishing and say ‘But for the grace of God ALONE there goes I!’”
Precisely. You cannot see it, and that’s the problem. Perhaps one day you will!
By all means, feel free to interact with others on this point, as I imagine folks on both sides have more to say on this, but please do count me out, since as long as you try to understand my theology through the lens of yours, we’ll get nowhere.
Grace and favor on you!
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
I think Calvinists greatly misunderstand Ephesians 2:8-9. It says we are saved by grace “through faith” and not solely by works. “It” is the gift of God and not of ourselves lest anyone boast. So to understand correctly, because of our independent faith, God gives grace to save us. Grace is the gift, but is dependent on “our” faith. It’s always been this way. And to be clear, faith is not faith unless accompanied by actions.
Not that these theologies are by any means the same, but I think it’s interesting to compare Calvinist views of Elect with that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not the same, but somewhat a similar concept how God “pre-chooses” a certain quantity for salvation. We know the Scriptures say God desires for ALL men to be saved. I think one of the reasons Calvinists hold so firm to their views is because it gives them a chance to relax regarding the assurance of their salvation, and not have to dread punishment or feel responsible should they fall into a lifestyle of gross sin. No matter what anyone says, you can only have true assurance of salvation if you are actively walking with the Lord, not just because you had a salvation experience a long time ago and adopted TULIP at that time. If you put your faith in the distinguished concepts of Calvinism rather than the whole Word of God, you are greatly deceiving yourself. I speak as a former Calvinist.
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
“because of a derogatory, Arminian-deriding, self-congratulatory conversation that was taking place online in a pro-Dr. White forum, as the show was going on.”
Dr.Brown,
If you found anything there offensive then I apologize for that even though I was not a part of that conversation and I cannot affirm your point or decline your point. Nevertheless apology given is always a good thing in this fallen world even without prior verification.
Saying that I do not think that it is productive to extend that dynamic into this interaction…
So let us stay on the discussion and not on discussants. As to the Calvinism let me quote for you a man of God who personally preached the Gospel to over 20 million people whom you have quoted on this forum as to support your Arminian position. Let us hear from Charles Spurgeon speaking about Calvinism and Arminism:
“”Salvation is of the Lord.” That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor…”
Charles Spurgeon from his sermon:
“A defense of Calvinism”
FULL TEXT: http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
” All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Matthew 11:27 ESV
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
Christophe, Sam, and Ben2
You say Arminian’s are inconsistent based on the following premise
“1. If we choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense), then we have grounds for boasting.”
This is utter non-sense. Where in the Bible to you ever get the idea that choosing God, essentially saying yes to His salvation and work on the cross is ground for boasting? I wonder if Calvinists really have natural tendency toward boasting as they seem to always try and remind themselves everything is God-centered. The whole idea of scripture testifying that many wonders were done at the hands of the apostles must really rile the Calvinist bones. “What’s that, man is boasting it should read God did many miracles and should have done it independent of the apostles themselves so that there would be even less chance for boasting.” Friends I think you’ve got a tendency to boast that’s why you accuse Arminians of boasting that they did something by accepting the grace of God.
Are you jealous of such freedom? Does it mess with God doing everything? Is it tatamount to Humanism and the exalting of man? Would you accuse someone of boasting if they were willing to walk in humility but believed they choose the Lord even as your Calvinist ears hear nails on a chalkboard. Will strain a gnat for your Calvinist doctrine and swallow a camel, by missing a true working of the Spirit in a person’s life. Or is it not people that you are concerned with, but a dangerous theological system that threatens the glory of God in all His Sovereignty?
Speaking of which,
———————–
Dr. Brown I would like to ask you a question about Sovereignty.
You said you believe that God’s Sovereignty is diminshed by the Calvinist interpretation of Sovereignty. How can that be? I mean that make such a big deal about God being glorified that He does everything, even causing people to sin so that He can be glorified in their judgment. So how can you say it diminishes God’s Sovereignty? What do you mean by Sovereignty then? And how does that make God less free to do what He wants when He wants it?
Brad
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
By the way, I was just looking at William Klein’s commentary on Ephesians in the new EBC (the series in which my Jeremiah commentary is written), and I find his comments to be some of the clearest and best exegesis of key passages in Ephesians from a non-Calvinistic viewpoint (and, therefore, in my view, rightly exegeting the text). He hits the nail on the head!
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
Sam, Ben2, Christophe,
I know your argument well. Piper claimed that no Arminian prays like an Arminian, we all pray like Calvinists. As if to be consistent with what Arminian’s believe they had to pray, “Lord save this person but don’t injure their free-will.” People don’t have to pray like that because Arminians already acknowledge that God doesn’t have to violate their boundaries, which is tatamount to spiritually rape anyone into submitting to His life in them.
To be truthful Calvinist could be more consistent in prayer if they prayed. “You’ve taken away this person’s will, now violate them with your life and do what you want with them, they don’t have any choice in the matter. I don’t want to be inflamatory so I digress. So you can see your insistence of not having choice is as grotesque to us Arminans as our insistence that man has a choice to you Calvinists.
I appreciate how pleasant things have been in this discussion but lets remember we are all fighting on the same team. We are all striving to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. If the truth be told, we are much more alike than different on this issue. May God be glorified!
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:45 pm
Brad,
To answer your question about sovereignty, my point was simply this: The Word speaks of God ruling and reigning and working everything according to the counsel of His will. Now, which is a greater act of that sovereignty, decreeing everything in advance so that it would all unfold according to the decree, or creating a world with free-willed creatures and still accomplishing things according to His plan? Or, put another way, Who would be the more brilliant chess player, the one who programmed all the pieces on the other side to respond a certain way and ended up with the final, desired outcome, or the one who let the pieces on the other side make their own choices, within certain parameters, and still ended up with the final outcome he desired, even getting the pieces to end up, at certain times, on certain predicted spots? Obviously, the latter.
That was my only point, and I meant it in terms of glorifying God all the more. Of course, the exact wording of my statement depends on one’s definition of sovereignty.
As for your closing comments on your second post — Amen!
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
I seem to be beating a dead horse here, but I think what I’ve been trying to say about grace not being the determinative factor separating the saved and the unsaved according Arminian teaching can easily be expressed as a syllogism.
Arminianism teaches that:
1.) Grace is given equally to everyone;
2.) Not everyone will be saved;
3.) Grace is not the determining factor in salvation.
If the aforementioned syllogism is valid and grace is not in the final instance what separates the saved from the unsaved, the consistent Arminian cannot say of those who are unsaved: “But for the grace of God there goes I!”
I freely admit that I’m not an expert in logic and would very much appreciate it if someone could point out if I’m making a mistake somewhere since I honestly would not like to be guilty of misrepresenting the Arminian position.
S.D.G.
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:53 pm
Ben2,
Yes, beating a dead horse, but I admire your persistence.
And, seriously, I do hope some Arminians will help you see: 1) how you’re misunderstanding the Arminian position; and 2) how you’re making a new construct about “boasting” beyond what the Bible teaches. I think this second point is the biggest one, and grasping that, you’ll understand the first point. (Again, your syllogism assumes what it wants to prove.)
May Jesus alone be exalted to the glory of God the Father!
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
Brad,
I don’t think the differences between us is that you believe we make choices and Calvinists don’t. I think the difference is in what we think it means to make a choice–libertarian freedom vs. compatibalist freedom. We Calvinists fully acknowledge that we make choices. The difference is that we think our choices are determined by our strongest motivations, whereas libertarians believe that no antecedent causes and/or conditions determine our choices. While motives and desires can influence our choices, they cannot determine them.
Since, in our view, our desires and inclinations are all naturally bent away from God, we are unable to repent unless God changes our hearts. And when God changes our hearts, we then have the proper inclination to place our faith in Christ. We choose in the sense that we act on our motives, desires, and inclinations. A person acts with the most freedom when they do exactly what they want to do.
A lot of libertarians I’ve talked to have a difficult time understanding how acting on an inclination that we could not help but act on can be called a choice at all, so they deny that we believe in choices. But I have a difficult time understanding how acting independently of all motives, desires, and inclinations can really be called a choice at all. That is something I think is worth debating about.
Now, you seem to be having the same misunderstanding that Dr. Brown has. You quoted me as saying:
“1. If we choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense), then we have grounds for boasting.”
Then you said:
“This is utter non-sense. Where in the Bible to you ever get the idea that choosing God, essentially saying yes to His salvation and work on the cross is ground for boasting?”
It is not my position that choosing God or saying yes to his salvation is grounds for boasting. It is not my position that the Bible teaches anything of the sort. In fact, my position is just the opposite. What I am arguing is that if the libertarian view of freedom is true and applies to our choice to embrace the gospel, THEN we would have grounds for boasting. I am not in any sense arguing that we have grounds for boasting because we have faith in Christ. Rather, I am arguing against the libertarian notion of free will with regards to our choice to accept or reject the gospel. Look at the conclusion of my argument.
If I am still not being clear, then we’re at an impasse. You said,
“Friends I think you’ve got a tendency to boast that’s why you accuse Arminians of boasting that they did something by accepting the grace of God.”
We have made no such accusation. Please re-read what we have actually said, and do so more carefully.
January 31st, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
Thanks Dr. Brown. I still don’t get it, but perhaps someday…
God bless!
S.D.G.
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
Sam,
I suggest you don’t use the word “libertarian” to describe an Arminian’s view of the will, since that can be offensive, not to mention lead to misunderstanding. (In fact, as a philologian and exegete first, then a theologian second, I often find that the use of certain terms obscures the argument rather than helps, but again, that’s my perspective.)
God has to enable us to repent or believe, but we can refuse His gracious gift. We remain utterly dependent on Him — which is hardly libertarian! — but, as He ordained things, He calls us to accept His gift of life or reject it. And so, if we boast, we boast only in the Lord. And I do think that Brad read your comments accurately, which again, underscores the points I’ve been making about the false system being erected on Scripture, then the judgments that are made based on that system.
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
” …Friends I think you’ve got a tendency to boast that’s why you accuse Arminians of boasting that they did something by accepting the grace of God.
Are you jealous of such freedom?…”
Brad,
I think you should really get of the horse of rhetoric. It does not do anything good for the factual conversation.
“Where in the Bible to you ever get the idea that choosing God, essentially saying yes to His salvation and work on the cross is ground for boasting?”
Brad,
You are asking a wrong question and you set up your own straw man to support your position. You are trying to make an argument by asking us to show you the opposite.
The Scripture is repleted with strong attestations that it is GOD choosing men and not the other way around. We do not have to show you the “other way” all we have to do is to show you the biblical way for which there is a massive evidence all over the Bible:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:44 ESV
“And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
John 6:65 ESV
“All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Matthew 11:27 ESv
“And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20Immediately they left their nets and followed him. ”
Matthew 4:19-20
“”For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”
Deuteronomy 7:6-8 ESV
And on and on it goes…
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
Dr. Brown you said that I’m making a new construct about “boasting” beyond what the Bible teaches. Granted that I’m not aware of any verse in the Bible that explicitly mentions the kind of boasting I was describing, but boasting in that way would still be wrong, right?
S.D.G.
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
Ben2 said:
“1.) Grace is given equally to everyone;
2.) Not everyone will be saved;
3.) Grace is not the determining factor in salvation.”
If the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises, I’m afraid I don’t see it. #1 is what I take the Arminian position to be. #2 is something I think both Arminians and Calvinists can agree on. #3 seem to follow inescapably from #1 and #2.
A. If grace is the determining factor in salvation, then whether a person is saved or not would depend on whether they are given grace or not.
B. If whether a person is saved or not depends on whether they are given grace or not, then if a person is given grace, they will be saved, and if the are not given grace, then they will not be saved.
C. Therefore, if grace is the determining factor in salvation, then if a person is given grace, they will be saved, and if they are not given grace, then they will not be saved.
From C, you can derive an inconsistency in the Arminiam position, which can be demonstrated in one of two ways:
1. In the Arminian view (as well as the Calvinist view), not everybody is saved. It follows inescapably from C and 1 that not everybody is given grace. But Arminians believe everybody is given grace equally, so there is a contradiction.
2. In the Arminian view, everybody is given grace equally. It follows from C and 2 above that everybody will be saved. But Arminians believe that not everybody will be saved, so there is a contradiction.
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
“Who would be the more brilliant chess player, the one who programmed all the pieces on the other side to respond a certain way and ended up with the final, desired outcome, or the one who let the pieces on the other side make their own choices, within certain parameters, and still ended up with the final outcome he desired, even getting the pieces to end up, at certain times, on certain predicted spots? Obviously, the latter.”
If the final outcome is as desired by God which you have confirmed by the statement above: “…within certain parameters, and still ended up with the final outcome he desired,…” how is that a “free choice” and “free will” Dr.Brown?
It certainly is not unless one wants to believe in illusions. If God get His way in the end as He certainly does how meaningful really is your “free choice” “within certain parameters”?
I am afraid Dr.Brown that you have just exemplified another inconsistency of the Arminian theology.
Thank you.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
Dr. Brown, I apologize if I offended you by my use of the word “libertarian,” but that is a technical term in philosophy to describe a particular point of view regarding free will. It is used by those who advocate the view–people like William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. Since Craig, Moreland, and others who embrace that view use the term “libertarian” to refer to it, I had no idea anybody would find the term offensive. What term would you prefer me to use in order to distinguish your view of the will from compatibalism?
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
Christophe,
What is your educational background if you dont mind me asking.
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
Ben2 & Dr Brown,
Ben2:
I see no problem at all with your syllogism; though I am no expert in logic either.
Dr Brown:
Where exactly does Ben2’s syllogism “assume what it wants to prove”? Being no expert in logic I can only assume I’ve missed something.
This is what it “proves”:
3.) Grace is not the determining factor in salvation.
I can’t see which premise it is that assumes this conclusion.
Premise 1?
1.) Grace is given equally to everyone;
Or premise 2?
2.) Not everyone will be saved;
Which of 1, 2 or 3 do you not agree with? And if you do agree with 1 & 2, how is it that 3 does not follow?
Sorry, but the horse didn’t appear to me to be quite dead yet! ;o)
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
“What term would you prefer me to use in order to distinguish your view of the will from compatibalism?”
Sam,
If “libertarian” is offensive then a perfect description is synergism and I hope that is will not be perceived as “offensive” as it is used by scholars and theologians all over the theological map.
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
“And I do think that Brad read your comments accurately, ”
Of course you do, Dr. Brown. That’s because you have the same misunderstanding that Brad does. I have explicitly denied what you and Brad have accused me of saying, yet you keep insisting that I said something I didn’t say. And you insist that I prove something I never asserted. It’s weird. I can’t help but say “Wow!” After all my efforts at being as clear as I can possibly be, you persist in this misunderstanding.
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
Hello
I am way behind with all this, and of course there is a time difference to contend with, but I couldn’t let this comment go by w/o adding my two pennyworth.
“If Arminianism is correct one cannot escape the conclusion that the saved person must have been just a little less hardened (or a little more intelligent) than the unsaved person since he was willing to accept God’s offer of salvation while the other refused. ”
Wait a minute — Jack Graham was 6 when he got saved, James Dobson was 5 — were they smarter than the people who got saved at 20, 60 or 80? Eh? How smart do you have to be to see your own sin? My kiddies (see Jan 29 5.38 pm) know they can’t stop being naughty and they know no Hebrew at all!
Believe me, it’s not a sign of deep erudition to see how sinful you are…
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
“What is your educational background if you dont mind me asking.”
Ben KC,
I actually do mind you asking because this is another example of going after the person participating in the discussion and not after the arguments presented in the discussion. This seems to be a rather common occurrence on this forum.
Please forgive me if you find my educational status too lowly and too mismatched to yours.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:38 pm
Anthy, and yet some people don’t see it. Why?
S.D.G.
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
:Believe me, it’s not a sign of deep erudition to see how sinful you are…”
Anthy,
You are attacking your opponent and not your opponent’s arguments. This is commonly known as “ad hominem” and it is a well know and not really respected evasion tactic.
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
Can I ask all the Calvinists here, what is the disadvantage you see for someone believing as an Arminian, and advantage to believing as you do? Can you answer this bottomline in maybe a few short sentences?
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
Christophe,
I respect your decision and understand how you feel. I just wanted to get a better understanding where you are possibly coming from.
January 31st, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
Anthy, could it be that we are all born blind, unable and unwilling to see our desperate condition, but that God, in his mercy, has chosen to reveal the truth to some and not to all?
At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. (Matt. 11:25-26)
S.D.G.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
“I respect your decision and understand how you feel. I just wanted to get a better understanding where you are possibly coming from.”
Ben KC
I wish I could say the same about your question and where it comes from.
Regards,
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
Michael, I believe the Calvinist view because I think it’s true, not because I see some advantage in believing it.
But with that being said, I think there is great advantage in having an accurate view of how God saves people. The more accurately we understand God, the more appropriate our praises can be. If we knew nothing at all about God, then we would have nothing to praise him for. If our understanding of God was inaccurate, then we might very well praise him for things that don’t actually apply to him.
For example, I thank God for changing my heart and causing me to be willing to put my faith in Christ. I thank him for granting me repentance. I feel like I have more to thank God for than Arminians do. Whereas an Arminian might say God threw us a rope, but it’s up to us to hold on to it, I think I was in a much more hopeless situation than that. I could not even hold on to the rope. God saved me completely. I did not muster the strength on my own to repent. God caused me to repent by changing my heart. That informs my worship.
And as a previous poster said, there are also psychological advantages to Calvinism. It is comforting to know that everything is in the hands of a wholly good God. Even the awful things that happen will somehow, in the end, result in the praise of his glory. They are not just pointless tragedies.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
Christophe,
Heres my educational background:
Undergrad degrees:
BRSM 99. Practical Ministry. A.A
Nyack College 02. Youth Ministry. B.A
Ongoing Graduate degree:
Alliance Theological Seminary, M-Div.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
No, Christophe, I was not attacking anyone. I was examining the assertion that a person who believes in Jesus of their own free will could be said to be more intelligent than a person who does not believe. Since small children can be saved it is not a sign of intelligence that a person has faith. If a person sees their sin at the age of 5, I pointed out that an awareness of sin is not a sign of erudition. Trust me, yer average 5 yr-old hasn’t heard of Chekov, or the meaning of ad hominem (I have, BTW).
I did not come to earth in a manger, I did not tramp around Israel preaching, and I wasn’t the one on the Cross — so what is there to boast about in admitting that I’m a sinner who needs a Saviour? As Dr Brown says, you never hear anyone actually boasting about being saved.
I do not know why some people choose not to accept Christ. (It’s like Stilton — how could you not like it?) It’s a mystery, when the Good News is so good. But since it does not take much in the way of worldly talent, brains or spiritual maturity to respond to the Gospel, it is hardly a great reflection on me if I say, “YES, PLEASE” to the “gift of God” (Romans 6:23).
And the Bible contrasts faith and works. Faith and works are different. If you go out and meet some JWs, you’ll soon see the difference. Actually, you’ve got more chance of meeting JWs if you stay in, they prey on the old folks, and housewives like me.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
Ben KC,
Thank you for sharing that even though I did not ask for it.
I really do not think that knowing the Lord and His Word is depended on the level of education, particularly religious education. I have seen too many PhDs in theology singing accolades to works like “Velvet Elvis” etc. I also met too many simple, uneducated people who knew their Bibles in an astonishing depth.
Since you insist, I studied on two universities while doing three majors: Law,Journalism and Business. In addition to that I had a rather brief encounter with a seminary and I am glad it was brief as the seminary was Arminian in its approach.
Regards,
C.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
ONE WORD TO EVERYONE (and where the shoe fits, where it):
If you can be on the forum here and not take things personally, wonderful. If you start to take them personally and then respond accordingly, you’ll have to stop posting.
I am requesting that no one reply to this email or send out apologies, just in case it applies to you; instead, I’m asking everyone to respond to issues and not to people so we can continue this important discussion.
So, rather than ask: “Dr. Brown, are you talking to me?”, instead just determine to interact at the highest levels, as the vast majority of you are in the vast majority of posts.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:32 pm
Christophe,
I know you didnt ask but I just wanted to share just in case you were curious of my background and to let you know I dont have anything to hide.
“I really do not think that knowing the Lord and His Word is depended on the level of education, particularly religious education.”
I agree. My purpose of wanting to know someone’s educational background is to understand where they are coming from. Thank you for sharing. BTW, what seminary did you attend.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
Anthy,
You echoed something I was considering posting with the hope that it might help some of our Calvinist friends understand our POV.
Simply stated, I have no idea why I believed and someone else didn’t, and I see no merit in myself for believing. And I have friends of mine who came to faith before I did, walked with me for a number of years, and then fell away. Why they did and I didn’t, I can’t say, but I do know that my only boast is in God’s goodness and grace.
If a Calvinist would say, “That’s our whole point. You’re thinking like a Calvinist now” (in terms of the salvation issue, not the apostasy issue, of course), my response is: To the contrary, you’re just now understanding how an Arminian thinks!
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:43 pm
Hello Dr Brown
I was wondering if you take suggestions for topics for future shows. I was so impressed by Go for Souls. After my encounters with the JWs, I realised that I needed to be ready for that knock on the door with a testimony or a short outline of the Gospel. I know people shut the door when they “don’t have time to talk”, and I realised that if I needed a Two-Minute Testimony.
How about discussing the various good ways of explaining the Gospel? If you have 3 mins, 10 minutes, half and hour? We are told to “share the gospel”, but a lot of people don’t know what to say. That’s why we just invite them to church or say nothing.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
“But since it does not take much in the way of worldly talent, brains or spiritual maturity to respond to the Gospel, it is hardly a great reflection on me if I say, “YES, PLEASE” to the “gift of God” (Romans 6:23).
And the Bible contrasts faith and works. Faith and works are different. If you go out and meet some JWs, you’ll soon see the difference. Actually, you’ve got more chance of meeting JWs if you stay in, they prey on the old folks, and housewives like me.”
Dear Anthy,
The point of Reformed Faith is that no matter if we perceive that what it takes to say “yes please” to the “gift of GOD” as much or very little we DO NOT HAVE IT at all. We don’t because we are spiritually bankrupt and our nature is not able to “bail us out” speaking in today’s economic lingo. We are dead and stinking in our sin as Lazarus was and beyond a doubt of being dead on his fourth day in the tomb.
That’s why we cannot say “yes” on our own just like Lazarus could not move his toe or even twitch his eye. The life had come to him from above, from the commanding mouth of the Lord: “Lazarus, come out” and so it was with me and so it was with you and so it was with Dr.Brown.
Please read here:
“Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul—when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man—that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher’s sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”
Charles Spurgeon
In defense of Calvinism
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
“And the Bible contrasts faith and works. Faith and works are different. If you go out and meet some JWs, you’ll soon see the difference. Actually, you’ve got more chance of meeting JWs if you stay in, they prey on the old folks, and housewives like me.”
Anthy,
I had my share of encounters with JWs. I had discussions with them and frankly as a testimony to Reformed Faith ( not me ) I have seen all three of them (they come usually in 3s) sitting in my living room with a puzzled look on their faces and not able to respond to presented arguments and asking me five times what kind of faith is this Reformed Faith.
I salute you for witnessing to these lost souls.
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
Throw away the TULIP and embrace the Rose of Sharon.
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:55 pm
Neither of my comments have even been moderated yet, so no use waiting up for a reply or posting any further. It’s been interesting listening in though…
‘Night folks.
P.S. It’s okay, I’m not taking it personally!
January 31st, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
Lee,
To respond to your two questions (and thanks for your gracious comments):
1) The analogy of the High Priest can’t be taken too far, since you could simply ask: What about all the people who lived before Aaron and his descendants were instituted as priests (and/or, before the Day of Atonement)? Salvation is ultimately through the blood of Jesus, not animals. However, in so far as the analogy can be rightly applied, it works against Calvinism, as I stated in answer to Dr. White. Also, on a wider level, weren’t there godly people outside of Israel in ancient times? How then were they made right with God? Jewish tradition, plus scriptural texts like 1 Kings 8:41-43 would point to the efficacy of Israel’s sacrifices, joined with their repentance (like the repentance of the Ninevites).
2) The teaching of the universality of Christ’s atonement is, to me, one of the clearest teachings of Scripture. As pointed out by Prof. Vernon C. Grounds, dealing with verses like Jn. 1:29; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:17-21; Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 3:9; and 1 Jn. 2:2), “It takes an exegetical ingenuity which is something other that a learned virtuosity to evacuate these texts of their obvious meaning: it takes an exegetical ingenuity verging on sophistry to deny their explicit universality.” And Jesus truly saves to the uttermost “those who come to God through him” (Hebrews 7:25). There is no limitation of His power. He has made a complete bridge that goes from death to life, and those who receive what He has done on the cross enjoy its benefits to the full.
Again, this is one of those subjects in which, as far as I can see it, Calvinists declare what full salvation must look like and how it must be appropriated, and then claim that anything less than that is not full or complete. Not so. By God’s grace, throughout eternity I will enjoy the benefits of God’s glorious and complete salvation as much as any Calvinist in the world.
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
Greg,
Tulips grow and bow down to HaGefen Ha’Amitit –
The Real Vine…
SDG,
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
Hello Christophe
You wrote:”I had my share of encounters with JWs… I have seen all three of them (they come usually in 3s) sitting in my living room with a puzzled look on their faces and not able to respond to presented arguments and asking me five times what kind of faith is this Reformed Faith.”
You see, it really is true that everything is bigger in America — the JWs only come round in twos over here! Witnessing to them is like peeling an onion — there are layers and layers to take off. Actually it’s like stripping paint off a very old window. Before you can put on the new paint, you’ve got to take off the rubbish. They can come out of it, though. You must have got through to the people you met. They were actually responding to you — instead of going on with their prepared speech, they were asking 5 times about your faith. You planted one BIG seed that day.
“I salute you for witnessing to these lost souls.”
Ooh, you are being too nice, I don’t deserve praise. JWs are the easiest people in the world to witness to:
1. They come to your house — so, no travelling 2. They actually want to talk about eternal life 3. They are easily won over with tea and homemade biscuits (cookies) 4. They are all too aware that their works ain’t saving them, even if they seem happy enough 5. Everyone is horrible to them, so it totally shocks them if you are cordial, smile and say,”I would love to talk about God”
6. You have the Holy Spirit to tell you what to say 7. After you have gone, no matter how rotten your day, you feel great, cos you just talked about salvation. One time, after they had gone, I shut the door and said to myself, “You know, that Gospel — it really is good news, it’s really good!”
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
“it takes an exegetical ingenuity verging on sophistry to deny their explicit universality.”
Dr.Brown,
I present to you that it takes a very superficial reading verging on ignoring the context to maintain this implicit universality.
Just one example:
“But do not overlook this one fact, B E L O V E D, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
1 Peter 3:8-9 ESV
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
I find the Calvinist persuasion of total depravity intriguing…
Men are so dead in trespasses in sins that God must regenerate them in order for them to believe.
So were all the OT prophets, priests, patriarchs, and kings regenerate? How were they able to respond to God? What about John the Baptist, Simeon, and Cornelius?
Didn’t Jesus tell Nicodemus, “You must be born again”?
Didn’t Jesus say that though John the Baptist was the greatest prophet, the least in the Kingdom was greater than he (Luke 7)?
Thus, John was outside of the Kingdom, yet was able to respond to God (John 1:33).
The idea that God must regenerate us in order for us to respond to Him – to believe in Him – is wrong.
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
“You have the Holy Spirit to tell you what to say 7. After you have gone, no matter how rotten your day, you feel great, cos you just talked about salvation. One time, after they had gone, I shut the door and said to myself, “You know, that Gospel — it really is good news, it’s really good!”
Anthy,
You are right nothing beats the privilege of witnessing to the truth and there is an unbelievable power present when you do that according to Lord’s will.
JWs used to come in 2s years ago now they come in 3s. I don’t know what happen but it must be some kind of JW inflation
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:25 pm
Christophe,
Please be assured that your argument here is the one I used as a Calvinist, and I would simply state that I cannot express how strongly I differ with your assessment that only a “very superficial reading verging on ignoring the context” could see texts like John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 as not speaking of a universal atonement.
Once again, your statement indicates to me that you do not grasp for a moment the mountain of solid exegesis that utterly refutes your claim.
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
“The idea that God must regenerate us in order for us to respond to Him – to believe in Him – is wrong.”
Greg
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
God
John 6:44
Take a pick
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
Christophe,
Please show Greg and me where John 6:44 says regenerate.
Also, John 12:32 uses the exact same verb in terms of the Messiah drawing all men to himself through the cross (and, presumably, the preaching of the cross). I’m aware of Calvinistic attempts to separate the usage in John 6 from John 12, but once again, it requires special pleading.
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
“Please be assured that your argument here is the one I used as a Calvinist,”
I appreciate that but what is a biblical weight of your past experience? I used to be an Arminian but I do not point to that as that has absolutely no gravity at all…
“and I would simply state that I cannot express how strongly I differ with your assessment that only a “very superficial reading verging on ignoring the context” could see texts like John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 as not speaking of a universal atonement.”
Dr.Brown,
My statement is a direct reciprocal to the statement provided by you. John 3:16 is has the dubious privilege to be the most abused verse in the whole Bible and does not teach universalism at all.
“For this is the way36 God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16 NET Bible
There is a qualification here Dr.Brown, not everyone but EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES.
“and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.”
1 John 2:2 ESV
Again Dr.Brown this is not universalistic but refers to the extent of Atonement as to the locations and times in which redeemed live or will live.
I am sure you are aware of different usages of “cosmos” by John some of it present in the very same chapter:
‘Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him, because all that is in the world (the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the arrogance produced by material possessions) is not from the Father, but is from the world. And the world is passing away with all its desires, but the person who does the will of God remains forever.”
1 John 2:15-17 NET Bible
Once again, your statement indicates to me that you do not grasp for a moment the mountain of solid exegesis that utterly refutes your claim.
Dr.Brown, very well and I respect what seems to you. Contrary to you, I actually present those stones of exegesis instead of attempting to impress you with a talk about the mountains of exegesis.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Are you saying that the drawing of God and spiritual rebirth are the same thing? Because I read two different words with two different meanings…
Helkuō – To draw or drag.
Paliggenesia – Regeneration, rebirth.
Please show me in the scriptures where God causes spiritual rebirth in us in order for us to believe in Him.
By the way, quickening and regeneration, are also two separate words that have different meanings.
Additionally, you haven’t addressed my previous point. What about everyone that preceded Christ in death the were able to respond to God? Were they regenerate as well?
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
“Please show Greg and me where John 6:44 says regenerate. ”
Dr.Brown,
It does not have to. It points to the INITIATOR. God is life and truth if he DRAWS to himself those who are dead in sin and a lie what happens to them?
With all due respect and this is only for the purposes of illustration and not analogy this type of argument “show me” is exactly the same JWs use when they tell me “show me where in the Bible it say TRINITY” Again it does not have to.
As far as “DRAW” – helkuo in John 6:44 perhaps this will spark some interest as far as your notion of absolute free will of the creature:
ἕλκω impf. εἷλκον; the future (ἑλκύσω) and first aorist (εἵλκυσα) are formed as if from ἑλκύω; tug, draw, drag; literally; (1) of a sword draw, unsheath (JN 18.10); (2) of a person, forcibly led drag (AC 21.30); (3) of a net haul, drag (JN 21.6); (4) as a legal technical term lead by force, drag into court (JA 2.6); figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)
Friberg, Timothy ; Friberg, Barbara ; Miller, Neva F.: Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 2000 (Baker’s Greek New Testament Library 4), S. 144
Dr.Brown,
Same ἕλκω – helkuo is used for draw in John 12:32. I affirm that but that is no argument for you at all. Does all means all all the time? No, Dr. Brown it does not. And it definitively does not here either.
Please read below:
Jesus said that at the cross He would draw all men to Himself. He did not mean everybody will be saved for He made it clear that some will be lost (John 5:28-29). If the drawing by the Son is the same as that of the Father (6:44), it means He will draw indiscriminately. Those saved will include not only Jews, but also those from every tribe, language, people, and nation (Rev. 5:9; cf. John 10:16; 11:52).
Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 2:318
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
An unusual thing happened to me last month. A Jehovah’s Witness came over to talk to me BY HIMSELF! We had a really good discussion, too. Unfortunately, he hasn’t come back.
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
“With all due respect and this is only for the purposes of illustration and not analogy this type of argument “show me” is exactly the same JWs use when they tell me “show me where in the Bible it say TRINITY” Again it does not have to.”
UNCLE.
God bless you Christophe. Have a wonderful week
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
“Additionally, you haven’t addressed my previous point. What about everyone that preceded Christ in death the were able to respond to God? Were they regenerate as well?”
Yes, Righteousness of Christ is applied to whom God wills on both sides of Cross.
“Please show me in the scriptures where God causes spiritual rebirth in us in order for us to believe in Him. ”
“for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring cword of God.”
New American Standard Bible 1 Pe 1:23
Why do you think Peter mentions the IMPERISHABLE SEED?
For purely poetical reasons or it points of something ETERNAL, ALIEN TO US, and PLANTED in us?
Did you planted your IMPERISHABLE SEED in you yourself?
Congratulations then…
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
Christophe,
I encourage you to enrich yourself by reading some fine, non-Calvinistic commentaries on the Scriptures.
You’ll find a useful link here with a list of lots of terrific, first-rate work: http://www.squidoo.com/arminiancommentaries.
Take the time, in particular, to read through Keener’s two volumes on John, since you cite John here.
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Hello Christophe
You wrote:” John 3:16 is has the dubious privilege to be the most abused verse in the whole Bible” I totally agree with you there(enjoy this beautiful moment while it lasts). The verse is abused mostly by being overused.
What’s wrong with Romans 6:23, or the verse in Isaiah where God says that our sins have cut us off from God so that He can’t hear us? (”You used THAT verse to share the gospel?” Yes, and as my opening comment. It wasn’t planned, OK, the Holy Spirit made me do it. And, yes, she is a Christian now, so I suppose it was the right verse for her. Ever since I started sharing my faith a bit more, the STUFF comes out of my mouth! Verses I never ever memorised, ideas I never even knew I knew — Jesus was not joking when He said that the Holy Spirit blows whereever He wants to!)
Yes, I am going to bed now. (Bad gurl)
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
Dr.Brown,
I appreciate the reference. I would say the same please read some fine Calvinistic commentaries available out there. I can assure you that reformed Faith has been strengthen and Reformed scholars were mightily busy since 1982 on.
Even more, I would appreciate a couple of your own exegetical stones thrown here my way on the account of the exegetical mountain that you have mentioned.
Perhaps tomorrow as I am tired and time to do other things.
Adieu for now with warm regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
Ooh, just one more thing. I must endorse Craig Keener. I have not read the commentary, but I have heard a series of 8 radio interviews with Mr Keener, about John’s gospel. They were aired on Trans World Radio and I downloaded the mp3s. I learned so much. The shows are great. He’s a real expert who can communicate clearly and with warmth. If I can find the link to the shows, I shall post it for you.
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
Anthy,
Good night!
” For the payoff of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 6:23
I personally think that this is one of the most beautiful and powerful verses in Romans.
SDG,
I am off for tonight. Have a good night dear Arminians.
Christophe
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
Christophe,
We had a road-slowing snowstorm here this weekend, hence giving me some unexpected extra time over these last two days. I doubt I’ll be online nearly as much once normal schedule starts up tomorrow.
But FYI, I’ve been reading and enjoying fine Calvinistic commentaries for almost 35 years now, so you need not be concerned on that end. By all means, however, start digging in the mountains I mentioned. You’ll find much gold there.
January 31st, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
Hi Christophe,
You implied that 2 Peter 3:9 does not refer to all men, but to the “beloved” he references in verse 8. That is the standard Calvinist interpretation. I understand your reasoning there, though I respectfully disagree. I have a few questions for you, though:
Ezekiel 18:23 seems to say the same thing. Do you believe this refers only to the “beloved” or does it apply to all men? If it applies to all men, then why does the Arminian interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 become a sticking point? Even if they are wrong about 2 Peter 3:9, the doctrine would still be supported by Scripture.
“Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” ESV, because I know you prefer it.
January 31st, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Dr. Brown,
If I remember right, James White mentioned in your debate that he prefers the term “Particular Redemption” over Limited Atonement. Although he believes the atonement was sufficient for all, he believes it can only be applied to the elect. One verse I have not heard him address is 2 Peter 2:1:
“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.”
Do you know how Dr. White (or any Calvinist for that matter) would respond to this verse? It seems to leave no room for the Limited Atonement view. This verse says that even the false prophets were “bought”…is it safe to assume that this refers to the blood atonement of Christ, as described in Revelation 5:9?
“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”
I’m no scholar, so I rely only on a plain reading of these texts. But they sure seem to refute the doctrine of limited atonement. If any 5-point calvinists on this thread can shed some light on these verses, I would much appreciate it!
Thanks,
Jake
January 31st, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
Jake,
They claim that in 2 Pet 2:1, there’s a different word used for “Lord” and a different word used for “bought,” so, allegedly, the text is not speaking of being bought with the blood of Jesus, but the arguments are quite specious, and your plain reading of the text here is surely right — as many scholars would confirm.
I expect that some of our Calvinistic friends here will chime in and give a more full answer.
January 31st, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
Jake,
Just after posting the last note, I realized I was not entirely accurate. The emphasis is normally placed on “Lord” (despotes in Greek) more than on “bought” — but again, it is an easily refuted argument, especially in light of the use of “bought” (agoradzo) in the NT (see, e.g., 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Rev 5:9; 14:3-4). As for despotes, it is used with specific reference to Jesus in Jude 4 — a book closely related to 2 Peter.
So, again, your plain reading of the text is completely right: Jesus bought these people with his blood as well, yet they denied him.
February 1st, 2010 @ 1:05 am
I am really enjoying this discussion. I come with some presuppositions like everyone else, I lean toward the “calvinist” side, though I personally don’t like the term. I don’t believe a number of things that Calvin did and I’m sure that Arminians don’t believe a number of things that Arminias did. I do believe in God’s choosing through predestination. I believe this because of what I see in scripture. There are a couple of verses that make things particularly difficult for me to believe otherwise, but maybe someone here can help with that.
To those who believe that God exercises the “patience, not willing that any should perish” to all to the same degree, how do you interpret verses like those in Joshua 11:20?
“For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.”
Another one that makes this concept difficult for me is the account of Moses and Pharaoh. The account constantly gives the idea that God is hardening Pharaoh’s heart on purpose to show His might to Israel. To the extent that even the death of the first born of Egypt has to be clearly laid at the Lord’s feet. If it is true that God desires everyone to come to a knowledge of Him, which I agree in a sense is true, doesn’t it appear that God had a greater desire in these things which was to declare is power and might to Israel (eventually us)? If someone can explain how the people God hardens to destroy fit into this fairness deal I would honestly be open to hear it. But as it is now, I see the bible say that God desires something, but then God acts, of His own will, contrary to something that He says He desires. The only conclusion that I can make is that while part of God is grieved at the death of anyone who bares His image, there is at the same time a greater desire of God to perform certain acts that will result in the death of people because it will bring glory to His name. This doesn’t appear to be a secret will. God says that these things happened to declare his power and might. He had a purpose and it seems to trump a desire that God had that He is not willing that any perish without Christ. It is my understanding that to look at these verses and try to argue them away, like I have seen some do with interaction of Pharaoh, brings dishonor to the text. If you believe that all means all, then when it says God hardened so that He would not show mercy then that is what it means as well.
I guess these thoughts do not argue for predestination, but rather show some trouble I have with the idea that God is “not willing that any perish” is absolute and His highest desire. That doesn’t seem to be the case.
I welcome your thoughts.
Lord’s Blessings,
Matt
February 1st, 2010 @ 2:25 am
Ben2, I have been reading your comments regarding what you think Arminians believe and, I must respectfully submit, your idea of Arminian theology is terribly flawed. It might help you to read Roger Olson’s, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.”
Christophe, as far as God having “two wills”, although it is asserted that “Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act “, Calvinism cuts it in two pieces (if not more) and makes it so complex to the point that there is no way anyone can really figure out what God really desires or will actually do.
In an nutshell, the Calvinistic notion of soteriology needs reams and reams of explanation, mostly to extricate themselves from a proposition that clearly contradicts the Biblical text. And that is what I usually get from Calvinists when I ask a simple question a ream of explanation.
Like I said in an earlier post, common sense seems lost in Calvinism; the exegetical concern in Calvinism seems to be to protect the presuppositions inherent in their creeds rather than discern the simplicity of the “most simple” will of God, which is revealed in the Bible.
I have downloaded the article you suggested, Christophe, for further reflection, but if the whole article is anything like the first paragraph, it only supports my contention above. For example:
1. There may be a confusion with equating the mind with the will; the will being an expression of intent or act issuing from the divine mind; the mind being that which sees and apprehends all things giving reason for intent and act of the will. No call for a dichotomy of wills, even as a “human” illustration, here.
2. Of course the divine mind can be “occupied differently about various objects” but that is no reason to maintain a dichotomy within the “most simple” will of God or “two wills”. Shucks, we do it all the time. What we don’t do is will the best for our children and give them cocaine! Or tell them, “Trust me and you’ll be safe” and then (irrespective of whether or not they trust you) throw them in front of a speeding car because that was our original intention!
I’ll read your article as objectively as it is possible for me, but I think it’s a matter of “Does he make good ol’ common sense?” rather then whether or not I am objective.
Please note, I’ve read quite a few Calvinists. Some of my commentaries are Calvinist (like Barnes’, which I love!). I own Reymond’s “Systematic Theology”, which I find quite useful in understanding Calvinism (I gotta get Calvin’s “Institutes”). I use to own Chafer’s “Systematic Theology” and (respectfully) disposed of it because I saw it was absurd (and that was before I knew anything about Arminianism or that there was such a thing). No, I decided not to give them to someone because I thought, “Why should I give someone a book I thought confusing”. Of course, Reymond is not that much better but I need one Calvinist to get a grip on what they teach. One of my favorite preachers was Spurgeon – he certainly has umph! in some of his sermons – but, as much as I liked him there were things that seemed not so “right on” as it first appeared.
However, when someone (a Calvinist it seemed) warned me not to read “Christian books” by Finney or Arminius because “they were from the devil”, that was a mistake. I quickly purchased Finney’s “Revival Lectures” and, later on, “The Works of Arminius” (I mean, he did say they were “Christian books”); these guys are on the top of the list as essential reading for me.
Here’s an aburd statement made by a prominent theologian (can’t rememeber who): “When someone becomes a Christian, they start out as an Arminian and end up a Calvinist” As a sports newscaster would say, “Give me a break!”
Anyway, just want you guys to know (1) The Calvinist deny that God’s nature has “two will” but they effectively dichotomozes God’s will in a way that one can only suppose it is his nature; and (2) To say God desires all men saved but certainly intends to damn most gives God a Romans 7 dilemma: “I do the very thing I do not wish to do.” Who will save God from his predicament?
Well, for my part, I would love to continue the conversation but other pressing needs require my attention.
February 1st, 2010 @ 5:39 am
Dr. Brown,
I don’t see how Calvinists can get out from under 2 Peter 2:1. To claim that this is not about Yeshua just because the word “Kurios” is not used is just a desperate attempt to try to escape from what the text actually says, namely, that the atonement of the Messiah was anything but limited. Besides the fact that, just as you point out, Jude 4 says that Yeshua is our “only Savior and Despotes” (same word used in 2 Peter 2:1), it is obvious that there is an allusion to the blood of the Messiah that has bought those that deny him. And even if it was about the Father, what else were they bought with? I have heard Calvinists claiming that this is not talking about Yeshua but about the Father buying His people from out of Egypt. I cannot see how this at all can be about a past event, since all the verbs are in future tense:
“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there WILL be false teachers among you. They WILL secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. “
So the same group that WILL be among those that Peter warns, “WILL secretly introduce destructive heresies” by which they deny “the Lord who bought them”. There is no reference to the past but to the future. Therefore, to make the claim that this is about the Exodus is just not what the author meant to say. Peter then goes on to say:
“2 Many WILL follow their shameful ways and WILL bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed THESE TEACHERS WILL exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”
Again, Peter refers to the future saying that many WILL follow the practices of these teachers. And in verse 3 Peter is referring back to the teachers in verse 1, saying that they WILL try to exploit Peter’s audience. There is just no way this can refer back to the people in the Exodus, but is clearly about the contemporaries of Peter, that weren’t bought from Egypt by the Father, but bought by the blood of the Son.
Another text that tares down the entire TULIP, with the probable exception of Total depravity is Hebrews 10:26-29:
“26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 27Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?”
I really hope people see the implications of this statement. As Calvinists claim, you can only receive the Gospel after you have been regenerated and once regenerated one cannot become an unregenerate person. Calvinists also claim that one is only sanctified by the blood of the Covenant if one is of the elect and once one is of the elect one cannot resist God’s grace and cannot fall away from the faith. Yet all these negatives are all positively attested to in this short passage. The writer clearly says here that those that receive the Gospel CHOOSE to leave the faith, CHOOSE to trample “the Son of God under foot”(bye bye Total depravity and unconditional election), CHOOSE to treat “as an unholy thing the blood of the Covenant” and that those people ARE sanctified by that same blood (bye bye Limited atonement) and that these people definitely fall away and are judged. (bye bye Irresistable grace and Perseverance of the Saints) Now I know of the Calvinist argument that this is talking about “people that want to go back to the old ways” (i.e. go back to sacrificing animals, etc), but this argument is just completely unconvincing.
Sacrificing animals when the Temple was still standing while acknowledging the atonement of the Messiah is in no way equal to the severe allegations brought against those spoken of in Hebrews 10:26-29. The disciples were still keeping the so-called “ceremonial laws” of sacrifice after the ascension of the Messiah, as evident in Acts 21, where Paul sponsors the Nazirite vow of believing men, who, according to Ya’akov (James), were “zealous for the Torah”. (Acts 21:20)
We all know that the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6) was to be made by way of an offering in the Temple, offering two doves and one lamb (Numbers 6:10-12) when taking the vow and when the period of the vow is ended it he is to offer again, this time two lambs and a ram. (Numbers 6:14) Paul and James endorsed this! How can the Calvinist interpretation of Hebrews 10:26-29 be correct, when James and Paul endorse that which the Calvinists claim brings about judgment on those that supposedly “go back to the old ways”? And there are many more points to be raised against the Calvinists interpretation on this text based on the book of Acts alone, but I think this will suffice. I have also heard Calvinists argue that the passage in Hebrews 10 talks about people that “thought” they were sanctified but really weren’t. This argument is so indefensible that I even hesitate to go over it.
One last text that I would like to point out against the Calvinist position is the parable of the Sower in Matthew 13, in particularly the part where the Messiah explains about the “rocky places”:
“18 Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: … The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.”
I think anyone can see what is going on here. We have to look at the Calvinistic teachings again before we can fully understand the implications of this statement. According to the Calvinist, one can only receive the Gospel if one is regenerated. And, of course, once one is regenerated one cannot fall away. Here, again, this teaching is undermined. This parable is clearly talking about a man who hears the word and receives it! So, according to Calvinism, this person must be regenerated or else he cannot receive the Gospel, since he is “dead in trespasses and sin”. But then the Son goes on to say that this person eventually doesn’t fall away, having no root. Again, we have an instance here where the person is not totally depraved, the election is not unconditional, the atonement is not limited, grace is not irresistible and the saint does not persevere.
I’ll stop now or I’ll fill up the entire blog.
Shalom,
Nakdimon
February 1st, 2010 @ 5:41 am
Sorry, my final comment should be “But then the Son goes on to say that this person eventually DOES fall away, having no root”
February 1st, 2010 @ 10:59 am
“Of course the divine mind can be “occupied differently about various objects” but that is no reason to maintain a dichotomy within the “most simple” will of God or “two wills”. Shucks, we do it all the time. What we don’t do is will the best for our children and give them cocaine! Or tell them, “Trust me and you’ll be safe” and then (irrespective of whether or not they trust you) throw them in front of a speeding car because that was our original intention!”
Dear Nelson,
I am sorry you cannot see what is visible in the article and what is solidly backed up by the Scripture. I think you need to discard anthropomorphistic view of God’s will (your example about human parenting) and be consistent in your theology. That is if you affirm God’s complex unity you should be able also to affirm complexity of God’s will as perceived from our point of view.
If you insist on denying of the complexity God’s will you have a problem and you have a serious inconsistency in your Arminian theology. That is if you keep on believing that God foreknew who would be saved then you cannot say at the same time, believe and proclaim that God is trying to save every man. This is illogical fallacy, inconsistency as well scriptural fallacy.
By the same token no Arminian who values consistency can say that God foreknew which sinful creatures will be lost and then say that it is not in God’s will to allow them to be lost.
Sadly, consistency does not bother many Arminians that’s why they are not willing to take their beliefs to the next steps and logical conclusions…
“However, when someone (a Calvinist it seemed) warned me not to read “Christian books” by Finney or Arminius because “they were from the devil”, that was a mistake. I quickly purchased Finney’s “Revival Lectures” and, later on, “The Works of Arminius” (I mean, he did say they were “Christian books”); these guys are on the top of the list as essential reading for me.”
Finney is a father of hyper arminianism is he not? That takes you even further from the balanced theological position on these maters.
SDG
Christophe
February 1st, 2010 @ 11:01 am
Nelson,
Soooo well said!
Calvinists,
I still can’t get over how you take and run with John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him”, as you presuppose with unscriptural cooked-up theology that it is impossible for anyone to reject the Father drawing them. Again, it should be simple to understand that although the Father is trying to draw us to Him, we have the choice to accept or reject, as is consistent in the rest of Scripture.
February 1st, 2010 @ 11:20 am
I understand your points much better than you realize. At one point I wrestled with fully embracing being a seven point Calvinist. I realize that the system is so full developed it is almost impossible to see things any other way when you are in it. I also understand why you have such difficulty with not understanding why we keep saying faith is not room for boasting because from your POV
Man can’t move toward God at any time of His life.
God gives faith to man to believe, and keep on believing until the end when you get into heaven.
I understand why you have such trouble with the statement show me where in the Bible faith is ever grounds from boasting. From an Arminian POV this is the issue.
From a Calvinist POV it makes no sense. In your mind you think “that’s silly man has no desire for God unless God put that desire in him.” So you are trying to prove that because it is of faith it is not a work meaning because God gives a man faith there is no room for boasting.
And we Arminians are using the same language and making a totally different point. Because God has set up a system where people can respond to His offer of salvation that is not a work at all and it excludes boasting.
So we use the same language but we mean something totally different when we talk about faith. That is why I said at one point it would be helpful to define the terms faith.
Calvinists believe faith is given as a gift of God. It it came from man it would be a work. But since it doesn’t come from man God is most glorified because he does it all.
Arminians believe faith is a simply a human response to God’s offer, putting trust in the work of Christ salvation.
February 1st, 2010 @ 11:29 am
“But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves.”
2 Peter 2:1 NET Bible
Nakdimon,
To claim, to assert and to read into this passage anything about Reformed Christians is to arrogantly slander Reformed Faith and what God did through Reformation. It is to laugh at Reformed martyrs who were burning alive all over France in XVI and XVII century while going into the flames singing psalms and praises to God because they would not succumb to Roman Catholic Church and its teaching frequently overlapping with Arminian teaching…
You are or you choose to be blissfully ignorant about these matters and the movement of Holy Spirit accomplished through people who you now ignorantly call or imply to be “false teachers” or “heretics.”
This is too frequently visible face of Arminianism. I have said on this forum prior that we Reformed Believers recognize Arminians as Christians, as brothers in Christ. We know that most of Arminians are in this position because of default and ignorance but not always. Yet the same is denied to us by so many Arminians as Nakdimon attested above. The most irritating thing is that the same Arminians that can so easily deny salvation of Calvinists after making that denial and accusation equally easy turn around and speak about “prideful Calvinists”
Who is really prideful here I ask? Who?
Nakdimon,
I am not even going to present how shockingly subjective and inconsistent really is your massive eisegesis of the texts that you quote in your vain witch hunt against the Reformed Faith and Reformed Believers. That can be only done with a person who does understand the issues and does not presuppose that the other side is not Christian.
I believe you are a Christian despite your convoluted argumentation, inconsistent theology,lack of any serious hermeneutics and ignorance of the history.
Be blessed in the Lord.
SDG,
Christophe
February 1st, 2010 @ 11:36 am
Christophe,
I don’t think there’s any advantage to focusing on what God foreknew. That’s like trying to wrap your brain around where did God come from, or His tri-unity? As you understand, God is complex beyond all understanding. Just because God knows the end result doesn’t mean He chose all the individual happenings in between to take place. If you try to understand this point to match with your own views, you’re still trying to make perfect sense of our very complex God, which cannot be done. God has set up systems beyond our understanding. We know he limits Himself on certain things also, as He did when He came in human flesh. One thing is clear, God desires for ALL men to be saved. And we know that God is just, so He punishes the wicked. Leave it at that. And regarding one’s assurance of salvation, be reminded of the parable of the sower. I’m sure those who grew up and got choked out with the weeds could have assumed their salvation was sure at one point.
February 1st, 2010 @ 11:39 am
“Again, it should be simple to understand that although the Father is trying to draw us to Him,…”
Michael K,
Trying? Trying? You imply that All Mighty God is trying and if the creature says “no” then the same All Mighty God fails to accomplish his will? How paradoxical you can be in your defense of your free will at the cost of God’s will?
GOD is not trying He accomplishes what he sets out to do. Exegetical proof from the same chapter of John 6:
“Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away.”
John 6:37 NET Bible
Can you see and perceive this:
“EVERYONE whom the Father GIVES me WILL COME”
Can you understand these words, their meaning and above all the sequence of these words?
#1 EVERYONE #2 GIVES #3 WILL COME
SDG,
Christophe
February 1st, 2010 @ 11:51 am
“I don’t think there’s any advantage to focusing on what God foreknew. That’s like trying to wrap your brain around where did God come from, or His tri-unity? As you understand, God is complex beyond all understanding. Just because God knows the end result doesn’t mean He chose all the individual happenings in between to take place. If you try to understand this point to match with your own views, you’re still trying to make perfect sense of our very complex God, which cannot be done.”
Michael K,
You have just voiced again a serious inconsistency and evasion so visible in Arminian theology and thinking. When Arminian asked about so called and so perceived “two wills of God” I have provided a solid theological argument voiced by Francis Turretin (http://bit.ly/c72Zqc) argument that prtialy mentions God’s complexity and therefore complexity of His will.
Yet recognition of this complexity have been denied and simplified by Arminian Nelson Banuchi as you can read above.
When I have presented the inconsistency of Arminian thinking and theology as clearly visible in Arminian assertion about God foreknowing who will come to faith as that would in any way, shape or form take Arminian Theology off the hook of God knowing who will not be saved and who will be damned and not acting on it in his will I am being told about “complexity and mystery of God’s will”
Can you Arminians be more inconsistent in that? I say no. You cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time. Make up your minds.
SDG,
Christophe
February 1st, 2010 @ 11:56 am
Sorry…I’m late to the game here…but I was reading several of the posts with great interest. Mostly the ones that ask about what amounts to the critical, practical differences between Calvinism and Arminianism.
I think it all comes down to what works “stick” in the end. Paul speaks of works being burned up and the individual being saved so as by fire. The Calvinist seems to be the one who is most interested in ensuring that what is done is “wrought in God”. Not that the Arminian isn’t interested in that, but the sense that the only way those works can be so wrought is that they originate in Christ is more thoroughly addressed in Calvinism. The Arminian seems to be interested in doing the will of God, but that all that is necessary so to do is to be told what it is. There is – associated with doing that will in Arminianism – nothing fundamentally and inextricably tied to that work knowingly and apparently originating in Christ Himself (though the will of God is so revealed, the work itself – that is the means – are not so clearly attributed to God). It seems to me that this is where the biggest practical chasm lies between Calvinism and Arminianism – if I understand them correctly. It goes to the heart of man’s will ruling whether he comes go God or not AS WELL as how he tries to fulfill the revealed will of God. Since the Calvinist ties the will of God to salvation itself, the two can’t be extricated when it comes to carrying out what God wills in Christ beyond the act of salvation. Since the Arminian can choose if he is saved, he can choose how to do what God wants done. The Calvinist not only does not want to choose (once regenerated) but cannot choose the means by which God fulfills His will. That the will of God is that man believe in Christ is to the Calvinist a total covering of everything from faith in Christ to every act done in Christ. To the Arminian it is merely that God wills that you be saved – to will to do it and to come to Him and to do His Will is up to the will of man.
To the Calvinist, the Arminian is at great risk of doing his own works and calling the God’s. At least that’s my observation.
On a more subjective note, does the Arminian “sense” (I’m not talking about mere feelings or emotions, but an internal sense of what happens in salvation) that a man’s salvation (in Christ, of course!) simply changes what is already there? Or is there an overwhelming sense that not only has something changed fundamentally changed, but that there has been a total and utter overhaul – a replacement or exchange more than a tinkering with and fixing of what is already there? Since this is a subjective thing, I’m more curious to see if there might be an association than asserting that there is a correlation….
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
Christophe,
Where did Nakdimon imply that Calvinists fall into the “false prophet” camp described in 2 Peter 2:1? I read his post twice and didn’t see that anywhere.
We appreciate your zeal for the Lord, but please try to relax a little. We’re all brothers in Christ here.
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
“To the Calvinist, the Arminian is at great risk of doing his own works and calling the God’s. At least that’s my observation.”
William,
Great point. That is why there are some, I repeat some Arminians who walk around with constant mantra on their lips of:
“my ministry…” , “my spiritual gifts…” , “my vision…” , “my sacrifice for the Lord…” etc.etc.
That is not to say that there are some Calvinists who go overboard as well because they do. One thing we have to remember majority of the Church today is Arminian and that is a massive majority.
SDG
Christophe
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
Christophe,
At least how many points does one have to support in order to be considered a Calvinist? 3 or 4 points?
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Meaning from your persective.
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
“Where did Nakdimon imply that Calvinists fall into the “false prophet” camp described in 2 Peter 2:1? I read his post twice and didn’t see that anywhere.”
Jake,
Maybe you should read it again. I see quit a bit about “implications” for Calvinists and Calvinism in Nakdimon post.
When you quote 2 Peter 2:1 and Hebrews 10:26-29 which both speak about rejection of truth and falsehood and you speak about implications for Calvinism it is not really hard to connect the dots that Nakdimon have placed in front of us…
SDG
Christophe
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
Ben KC,
The tulip is just a short hand for Reformed Faith. It is just an appetizer before the meal of theological truth. I would encourage you to taste it.
SDG
Christophe
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
Christophe wrote:
“Maybe you should read it again. I see quit a bit about “implications” for Calvinists and Calvinism in Nakdimon post.
When you quote 2 Peter 2:1 and Hebrews 10:26-29 which both speak about rejection of truth and falsehood and you speak about implications for Calvinism it is not really hard to connect the dots that Nakdimon have placed in front of us…”
By “implications,” he means there are logical conclusions following from these verses, and they happen to contradict TULIP. He goes on to list those “implications” and claims they refute at least four points of the TULIP model.
Thus, the point he was trying to make was that certain verses in the bible refute calvinist theology. 2 Peter 2:1 and Hebrews 10:26-29 are on that list. He is in no way implying that Calvinists are “false prophets”…just that they are mistaken when it comes to the TULIP model.
Wouldn’t you agree that 2 Peter 2:1 is a troublesome verse for those who hold to the view of Limited Atonement?
February 1st, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Christophe,
Yes, God is “TRYING” to draw all men to Himself. You act as if someone rejects God, that God Himself has failed. Your understanding of God’s system of salvation is flawed because it is obvious from Scripture that human beings are responsible for their choice to follow Jesus or not. What’s the point of God giving us commands if we can’t make choices as you suppose? By your reasoning, if God desires ALL men to be saved, then everyone is saved because He cannot fail. And you want to blame Arminians for inconsistency?
Now, lets take a look at some Scripture you provided to show it in it’s proper context:
“Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away.”
John 6:37
I can see how the wording of this verse throws Calvinists off. Jesus uses the word “gives” here with connection to those who had previously decided independently to follow him because they were lead by the drawing of the Father. It must also be understood that others who are drawn by the Father can also reject Him. Those who independently follow Jesus being lead by the Father’s drawing are considered as those who were given to Jesus. Obviously Jesus would never send away anyone who comes after him, but it does not say here what happens to those who later leave him. We know what happens to those that later leave him from the parable of the sower.
February 1st, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Dr. Brown,
Just wondering if you have studied also the Lutheran Confessions when you walked away from Calvinism?
The Lutheran Confessions explains Scripture affirms that Salvation from start to finish is through faith in Christ. However, God does this saving through the Word and Sacraments, not just Word but Sacrament as well. This is known as the Means of Grace, i.e. this is how God delivers the salvation won by Christ to sinful man. Whereas repentance and faith are gifts of God, God creates these in sinful man through the Means of Grace. They do not drop off from thin air and zaps you. This is the reason why when man is condemned it is because of his own fault, but when he is saved it is the “fault” of God.
If you have never bothered reading the Book of Concord, I hope you do in the future. I did and I left my Calvinism (from which I left my Arminianism too).
LPC
February 1st, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
Matt, you said, “Arminians don’t believe a number of things that Arminias did.” What are you talking about? What “things” did Arminius do that an Arminian wouldn’t believe?
February 1st, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
“Your understanding of God’s system of salvation is flawed because it is obvious from Scripture that human beings are responsible for their choice to follow Jesus or not.”
Michael K,
By this statement above you have confessed how little you actually know about Reformed Faith… Calvinism upholds human responsibility in the face of God’s sovereign choice. So who’s understanding is really “flawed” here…?
“Jesus uses the word “gives” here with connection to those who had previously decided independently to follow him because they were lead by the drawing of the Father.”
Excuse Michael, but where does it ACTUALLY SAY THAT in the text?
” 35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:35-40 ESV
So where do you actually see in that in above text provided in the actual immediate context? Where do you see:
THOSE WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY DECIDED INDEPENDENTLY TO FOLLOW HIM?
Where I DO ask? Please exegit text at hand that supposedly says what you imply it says and do not jump somewhere else in the Word to conjure up a semblance of argument for your eiesgesis of John 6:37…
SDG
Christophe
February 1st, 2010 @ 10:00 pm
Dr. Brown,
To a caller you said some like this: Man is separated from God but that doesn’t mean that man cannot believe, i.e., accept the gift.
Rom 8:8 says, “and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Certainly, obedience to God’s commands is what pleases God. And God has commanded us to repent/believe in Jesus Christ. And to repent/believe in Jesus Christ is to accept his gift. If what pleases God means to obey him (i.e., receive his gift), but “those in the flesh cannot please God” then those in the flesh (the non-Christian) cannot believe, i.e., cannot receive the gift.
Ahh, but you say, God initiates the process (which both sides believe) and offers the gift, then man can believe because he has been “graced” (Arminianism) or “regenerated” (some Calvinists) or “effectually called” (some Calvinists).
I agree. But here’s my point, you didn’t say this last paragraph to the caller. You just emphasized man’s responsibility (and ability) to believe when the discussion was about man’s natural condition (I believe it was with Moe). I think this just confirms what Dr. White stated in the first hour of the debate: Arminianism emphasis man; Calvinism emphasizes God. I understand that both views teach both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, but each view has it’s emphasis. I do not mean, though, that the views of Calvinism and Arminianism are the same; they are mutually exclusive views–no hybrid can exist.
What do you say?
February 1st, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
And by the way, the person drawing in John 12:32 is different from the person drawing in John 6. Jesus draws in John 12:32; the Father in John 6. This doesn’t sound like special pleading; it sound like observing all the facts.
February 1st, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
Christophe, Sam, Ben2 please respond to my earlier post:
February 1, 2010 at 11:20 am
February 2nd, 2010 @ 1:09 am
Christophe,
You said “Calvinism upholds human responsibility in the face of God’s sovereign choice”, yet you point out that anyone rejecting the Father’s drawing is not possible because that implies God’s failure. If God desires for ALL men to be saved, does that mean ALL men will be saved? Hardly so. How about verses like 1 Samuel 15:10-11? “The word of the Lord came to Samuel: “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” God regretted? Yes He did! God is also jealous and grieves. What does that mean to a Calvinist? Are these responses from God only pretended emotions? Of course not!
Regarding John 6:35-40, of course it is the Father’s will that the Son should not lose any of those who the Father has given him (those who have come to him and believed). It’s also the will of the Father that EVERYONE who looks on the Son and BELIEVES should have eternal life. You see, God’s WILL is that EVERYONE who looks on the Son and BELIEVES will have eternal life. That is His will, but we have the ability to reject His will. Even Jesus praying in the Garden prayed if it were possible for the cup of death to be removed from him, but then said “nevertheless, not my will, but your will be done”. His human nature for a moment indicated a will opposing that of the Father. Now back to the other point you mentioned, I agree you cannot exegete from these verses alone that those who were given to the Son independently made choices to follow him previously. That’s why you have to understand the entire context of Scripture and not form your theology on a few verses. I would also encourage you to read Johh 17, where Jesus is praying to the Father for his disciples, especially praying for protection against the evil one.
February 2nd, 2010 @ 5:18 am
Hello all
I promised to let you know about the radio talks on the gospel of John by Craig Keener. TWR have taken them off the website, but I have the mp3s on my USB stick. If you would like them, I could email them to you as an attachment. They can be understood and appreciated by those who do have seminary experience, and by those who don’t.
Craig Keener also gave sermon on John at a bible college, but I have not yet heard that, so I won’t post the link until I have had a listen.
February 2nd, 2010 @ 5:33 am
Some of you are getting a little bit grumpy and taking it that people are questioning your salvation. This Calvinism/Arminianism thing is not a salvation issue. No one is going to hell because of their beliefs about the extent of atonement. If, however, one does not avail oneself of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, then one is headed for hell.
If you are getting fed up, remember that all of us are believers.
That’s good news! We are not Arminians or Calvinists, we are Jesusits. Having thrown that big rock into the debating pond, I must get off t’Internet as son wants to read some books about the Greeks and the Romans. (Yes,he is still wiping his nose on his sleeve.)
See the fun you could be having?
February 2nd, 2010 @ 6:41 am
WHOA! Christophe, sorry I steppe don some toes, but that was anything but my intention. You have accused me of a lot of things that I haven’t said at all. I have never called any Calvinist either prideful, heretics or false teachers. I was simply doing exegesis of the text of 2 Peter 2, not applying it at all to Calvinism. (I think that is the impression that you had by reading your post)
Christophe, all that I’m saying is that the text doesn’t support the Calvinistic position, never that the text applies to Calvinism. I have not slandered Reformed faith or Reformed martyrs. Where on earth did you get that from? Like you do with the Arminians, I consider Calvinists my brothers and sisters in the Messiah. In fact, I have defended people such as James White in front of Arminians who condemned James White as not being a Christian many times.
Again, Christophe, if it seems as though I labeled Calvinists as heretics or any such thing, then please let me know where I did that. I repeat, that was not my intention at all and as far as I am concerned I have not written that either.
But I do look forward to you addressing my “shockingly subjective and inconsistent” eisegesis and my “convoluted argumentation, inconsistent theology,lack of any serious hermeneutics and ignorance of the history”. Please address those texts and show us where I went wrong.
Shalom in the Messiah,
Nakdimon
February 2nd, 2010 @ 11:27 am
Christophe,
Back off from the rhetoric and the attacks on others, as referenced here by Nakdimon. You’re misreading people’s posts, taking things personally, and lashing out in your own posts, and this is not the place for that.
Step higher, dear brother, and the dialog can continue. Otherwise, your posts will be delayed by the monitor. (Please don’t respond to this post publicly, but feel free to write to us privately if you feel that you’re being singled out unfairly or being misunderstood.)
February 2nd, 2010 @ 11:53 am
“How about verses like 1 Samuel 15:10-11? “
Michael K,
I have specifically asked you exegit from John 6 and with John 6:37. I have specifically asked you to not to jump to some other text. This clearly you are unable to do because John 6:37 clearly demolishes your Arminian agenda.
“You see, God’s WILL is that EVERYONE who looks on the Son and BELIEVES will have eternal life. That is His will, but we have the ability to reject His will.”
That is NOT in John 6:37 but only in your presupposed expectations.
“That’s why you have to understand the entire context of Scripture and not form your theology on a few verses.”
I do understand the entire context and tou have absolutely no reason to question that. There are times when you need to exegit a specific text for clarification as I asked you to do with John 6:37. This clearly you cannot do without running for cover somewhere else…
“I would also encourage you to read Johh 17, where Jesus is praying to the Father for his disciples, especially praying for protection against the evil one.”
I am glad that you have mentioned John 17. I would encourage you to read it as well and pay a very close attention to “them”, “their” , “these.” Attention regarding whom is Jesus talking, for whom is praying:
“I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. ”
John 17:9
Our dialog comes to the end. Thank you for your interaction and may God bless you.
SDG,
Christophe
and more importantly for whom He is going to the cross:
“And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”
John 17:19
February 2nd, 2010 @ 11:59 am
Dr.Brown and other respondents,
Thank you for your time and all responses. I appreciate it.
I am not perfect but it seems to me that there could be more objectivity here presented here. Since it is not it is time to end this dialog.
I wish you all the blessings according to Lord’s will.
SDG,
Christophe
February 2nd, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
Nakdimon,
I apologize if I misread your intentions. I noticed the texts as a Arminian arguments but in light of their theme I understood that you imply that to Reformed Theology.
In my defense all I can say is that I have seen on this forum assertions that Calvinists have “a different God” and “a different Gospel” Henceforth it was not too hard to read your quotes speaking about falsehood and false teaching on this level as well.
Thank you and be blessed.
SDG,
Christophe
February 2nd, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
“Anthy says:
February 2, 2010 at 5:18 am
Hello all
I promised to let you know about the radio talks on the gospel of John by Craig Keener. TWR have taken them off the website, but I have the mp3s on my USB stick. If you would like them, I could email them to you as an attachment.”
I would really like to hear these. Do you mind emailing them to me – gregorama91@yahoo.com.
Thanks,
Greg
February 2nd, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
“In my defense all I can say is that I have seen on this forum assertions that Calvinists have “a different God” and “a different Gospel”
Christophe,
I confess that I have engaged in this type of rhetoric. I apologize. However, my intention was never to be purposely offensive. I just have personal concerns about Calvinism.
If a person either agrees or disagrees with every point of TULIP (which obviously deals with soteriology), than I believe it’s reasonable to assume some degree of negative ramifications if you are on the incorrect side of this debate.
Again, I hope you’ll forgive my passion and lack of diplomacy with respect to this issue.
God Bless,
Greg
February 2nd, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
Thanks, Greg. It’s so important that we all understand how our language can sound, on both sides of every issue. As we listen to each other, we are sure to learn from each other.
February 2nd, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
Hello Greg
I saw your comment from 12.09 today, and have sent you the first of the talks. I might have to send them one at a time, as the old laptop is not behaving when I try to send two at once.
February 2nd, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
Thanks Anthy. I really appreciate it.
February 6th, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
Hello Greg
I sent them to you but I received a notice that the email did not get there. I will try again.
You could repost your email address on the blog, in case I have the wrong end of the stick.
February 6th, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
gregorama91@yahoo.com
Thanks,
Anthy
February 9th, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Hebrews 3:12-14 – “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today’, that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.”
February 10th, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Excellent Radio Show, got a lot out of that very helpful.
February 15th, 2010 @ 7:55 am
I came across the following quote by D A Carson today that clarifies what I’ve been trying to say:
“At the same time, to preserve the notion of particular redemption proves pastorally important for many reasons. If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent, as measured on any axis, then it is surely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between those who are saved and those who are not is their own will. That is surely ground for boasting. This argument does not charge the Arminian with no understanding of grace. After all, the Arminian believes that the cross is the ground of the Christian’s acceptance before God; the choice to believe is not in any sense the ground. Still, this view of grace surely requires the conclusion that the ultimate distinction between the believer and the unbeliever lies, finally, in the human beings themselves. That entails an understanding of grace quite different, and in my view far more limited, than the view that traces the ultimate distinction back to the purposes of God, including his purposes in the cross. The pastoral implications are many and obvious.”
D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79.
S.D.G.
P.S. Great book! I’d recommend it to anyone who cares to consider the different ways in which the Bible portrays the love of God.
February 16th, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
Hi Ben2, I don’t know if I understand Carson’s comment correctly. Could you elaborate.
A question that comes up is, if man’s will or faith is not the ground of salvation, how does that affect the Biblical idea that grace is unmerited? Such a distinction, however ultimate, has no direct correlation with meriting salvation, does it?
What am I missing here?